Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Capital Punishment (Caribbean)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to raise this issue in the House today, Madam Speaker, during a period of particular crisis caused by the hangings that have taken place in Trinidad and Tobago and the possibility of a large number of hangings in other parts of the Caribbean.
I have always been strongly opposed to capital punishment, but this is not just about capital punishment and the hanging of people who may or may not be guilty because the process of justice is not what it ought to be in some Caribbean countries. It is about human rights. I am not just a British Member of Parliament with not much else to do poking his nose into the affairs of other sovereign countries. Many people and organisations have expressed deep concern and sought to intervene in the attempts to carry out—and now, sadly, the carrying out of—executions in the Caribbean. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has condemned Jamaica. One of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons went there and reported that the prison conditions were the worst that he had ever seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I have visited Ministers and the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, who expressed his concern and told us of how he had sought to intervene. These are matters of universal concern to all who are troubled by the human rights records of several countries.
At their Edinburgh meeting in October 1997, the Commonwealth Heads of Government
reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental values of the Commonwealth … and emphasised that democracy, good governance, sustainable development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
I am sorry to say that a considerable number of those who signed that communiqué did so hypocritically, because they are not maintaining such standards in their country. The situation in Jamaica and Trinidad is particularly troubling. The hypocrisy involved in the way in which the matters are dealt with is almost as troubling. For example, Caribbean Justice, which is working hard on the issues, told me that because approximately 30 per cent. of the population of Trinidad and Tobago is Catholic and the Catholic Church there is opposed to the death penalty, the executions earlier this month were timed to avoid the feast of Corpus Christi. I do not know why the Government bothered.
I shall use one case as an example of the hypocrisy and violation of human rights in Caribbean countries. Anthony Briggs was due to be hanged yesterday in Trinidad. I have made inquiries about what has happened in that case. On Sunday 20 June an Associated Press report said:
The Trinidad and Tobago Appeals Court of Appeals agreed Saturday with a lower judge's ruling that killer Anthony Briggs' motion
to avoid execution
was 'plainly hopeless, bound to fail."'
The report went on:
On Friday, his lawyers appealed, saying he still had a petition pending before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
I shall return to that body later. The report continued:
Judge Nolan Bereaux said at midnight Friday there was no evidence that the appeal was ever made. 'I thus rule the constitutional motion is plainly hopeless, bound to fail.' he ruled. 'It is an abuse of process and it is frivolous and vexatious, and I refuse the application for a stay.' The appeals court, headed by Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, agreed several hours later
that Mr. Briggs should hang.
Mr. Briggs is one of between 70 and 100 people on death row in Trinidad, which has a population of just over 1 million. It is as though there were 5,000 people on death row in this country.
The next day, an agency report said:
Killer Anthony Briggs got a temporary stay of execution from the British Privy Council Monday, one day before he was scheduled to be executed.
The Privy Council … said it would give a temporary stay of execution until a date next month when it will hear full arguments.
The report continued:
Lawyers representing Briggs said an order imposed on the Trinidad and Tobago government last year by the Inter-American Human Rights Court was never lifted.
The order was imposed following moves by the government to hang Briggs who had a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission ruled on the petition in March and recommended to the government that Briggs be paid compensation or be considered for either an early release or commutation of his death sentence.
The Commission said that Briggs had remained in jail too long before he went on trial for the 1992 murder of Shammi Ramkissoon.
The courts in Trinidad were perfectly ready to authorise the execution of Mr. Briggs. Indeed, if they had had their way, they would have executed him even though the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said that he should be paid compensation and released. That is what I am dealing with in today's debate; it is not simply some kind of bleeding-heart opposition to capital punishment, although I admit that I am strongly opposed to it.
There are other examples. The last hanging in Trinidad was in 1994 when a man called Dan Ashby was hanged while the Privy Council was considering his case.
I have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South on issues relating to capital punishment in the Caribbean for many years. A number of men on death row in Jamaica took to writing to me. Some of them have been on death row for nearly 20 years. They started there as young men and have reached middle age while waiting on death row.
Until the Pratt and Morgan ruling by the Privy Council, there were some 270 people on death row in Jamaica. That is another example of the violation of human rights.
The Pratt and Morgan ruling said that keeping men on death row for more than five years was cruel and inhuman treatment. When I went to Jamaica, I met the Governor General, who said that men on death row should be executed or released.
After the Pratt and Morgan ruling, the number of people on death row in Jamaica was gradually reduced, though not as speedily as it should have been in accordance with the Privy Council ruling.
I went to Jamaica and visited all the prisons in Kingston where I met the men who had been writing to me. I was appalled, not only by the abominable conditions, especially on death row, but by the way in which those in charge of the prison conducted themselves. When I was talking to two of the men who had been writing to me, the man who was in charge of prisons and who had insisted on accompanying me to all my meetings was abusive to them in my presence. That led me to wonder how they were treated when not in the presence of a visiting British Member of Parliament, given their treatment when I was actually there.
The conditions on death row in particular were unspeakable. Prisoners have no furniture and no eating implements. They have a theoretical short exercise period which to a considerable degree is not observed, so they rarely see daylight because there is no lighting in their tiny cells. As a result, they have eye problems, but they are denied access to a doctor. Their only access to any hygiene is a stand pipe outside the death row block, which they have to use for washing and cleaning food. The conditions in other prisons, where people are not being held ready for eventual execution, though not quite as bad, are still dreadful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, who has also had correspondence with people on death row, told me what I had already guessed—that those on death row had been made to clean the place up before I arrived. If that was what it was like when it was cleaned up, I shudder to think what it was like when there were no visitors.
Like others, I was rather complacent in believing that hangings would not be resumed in the Caribbean. I thought that the saga would continue and that many would be held in intolerable conditions but not executed. Trinidad has shown that that complacency was totally unjustified and we now hear reports that Jamaica, where there are still some 50 men on death row, is preparing to conduct hangings.
It was reported in The Independent yesterday, that
Percival Patterson, the Jamaican Prime Minister, said during a visit to Canada that the Trinidad nine"—
there were nine executions there—
had set an important precedent.
The zeal for hanging has been stimulated by what has taken place in Trinidad.
Trinidad and Jamaica are not the only countries involved. It is difficult to find the exact figures, but it appears that there are 300 people on death row in Caribbean countries. Helping them presents great problems because there is very little opportunity for pro bono work by lawyers in those countries. There are some very brave lawyers, one of whom I met when I was in Jamaica.
The Commonwealth Caribbean death penalty project, which is one of a few projects that provide help for men on death row, has run out of funds. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, whose work on this matter I very much respect, asking whether overseas development funds could be provided. She wrote back saying that it was not within the scope of her Department. I very much hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whose answers to parliamentary questions show his concern, will be able to say that at least some finance will be made available for that project.
There are several eminent firms of solicitors in London who do pro bono work for death row prisoners in the Caribbean. I recently gave an affidavit to one who was seeking to assist a death row prisoner. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: when firms like Simons Muirhead and Burton and Clifford Chance do pro bono work, it demonstrates that it is a matter not simply of nosey parker Members of Parliament interfering, but of important areas of concern to everyone who cares about the rule of law.
I received a letter from Simons Muirhead and Burton describing the problems of those on death row or in Jamaican prisons relating to access to legal advice. It said:
There are approximately 300 prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean. Legal aid is not available to enable such prisoners to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor is legal aid made available for domestic or international human rights challenges …
Prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean do not have the financial resources to challenge their convictions at the JCPC, or to establish violations of their domestic or international human rights. There are very few lawyers in the Caribbean prepared to represent prisoners on a pro bono basis".
I wish to pay tribute to the London firms and solicitors who are doing this work, which is difficult.
Any of us with constituents in jail will be well aware that there are large numbers of people in jail who claim their innocence—whether accurately or not. However, owing to the rough and ready systems of justice in these countries, not only are people who will have undoubtedly committed murder liable to be hanged after suffering bad conditions in prison, but it is quite likely that innocent people are suffering in the same way. After all, if we in this country can keep people in prison for 14 years who were wrongly found guilty of murder—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South at this point—I do not rule out that the same is likely to have happened in these countries.
All over the Caribbean, the reintroduction of hanging—or the danger of it—is prevalent. In Barbados, there is an intention to reintroduce hanging. Last year, St. Kitts had its first hanging since 1981. In the Bahamas, Trevor Fisher and Richard Woods were hanged on 15 October 1998, notwithstanding the fact that each had petitions pending to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that their rights, enshrined under the American declaration on the rights and duties of man, had been violated. These were the first executions in the Bahamas for three years, and were carried out despite a démarche from the EU—which has been active on these matters—on both cases, and a request from the IACHR that the Government preserve their lives, pending its decision on the petitions submitted by the two men on


7 June 1996 and 28 August 1996 respectively. A recognised legal process was involved, but the hangings took place all the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been particularly concerned about the situation in Belize, and has been active on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in a recent letter to me, said that she was working with Penal Reform International in Jamaica and Belize. That is another country causing deep concern.
Those countries are so keen to carry out hangings that they are revoking international agreements to do so. They are withdrawing from international bodies which provide recourse to the possibility of executions being prevented or postponed.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, until recently, Belize had a Lord Chief Justice who professed to hear messages from God?

Mr. Kaufman: I once had a chief constable who said the same thing for a while. It appears to have spread from one continent to another. One of the messages from God that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai was "Thou shalt not kill." There was no proviso in that commandment that it should exclude judicial killing.

Mr. Mullin: This Lord Chief Justice was hearing the opposite messages from God.

Mr. Kaufman: I cannot regard myself as the greatest expert on religion, but it seems to me that the ten commandments were unequivocal.
Governments in the Caribbean are withdrawing from international agreements to carry out hangings. On 16 December last year, Guyana informed the United Nations Secretary-General of its withdrawal as a party to the optional protocol to the international convention on civil and political rights. Like Trinidad and Tobago, it then immediately reacceded, with a reservation purporting to exclude the UN Human Rights Committee from considering petitions brought by people under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. This course of action was instigated following the decision earlier in the year by the Human Rights Committee on a petition brought by two men under sentence of death.
The Human Rights Committee concluded that both men had been deprived of a fair trial and thus, if executed, would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives. It recommended not only that their death sentences be commuted, but that they should be released. The Guyanan Government said that they would not follow the recommendation. If one does not like a verdict, get rid of the judge—that appears to be their attitude.
Trinidad and Tobago has done the same thing. The Government set strict timetables for the Human Rights Committee and the IACHR to consider petitions made on behalf of people under sentence of death. In May 1998, Trinidad and Tobago notified the secretary general of the Organisation of American States of its intention to withdraw as a state party to the American convention on human rights, which came into force last month. That unprecedented step removed the obligation on the Government to guarantee the rights enshrined in the treaty to people within its jurisdiction.
Last August, Trinidad and Tobago's withdrawal from the optional protocol to the ICCPR became effective. Like other countries that are following that practice, Trinidad and Tobago immediately reacceded as a party to the optional protocol, with a reservation precluding the Human Rights Committee from considering any communications by a person under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. Jamaica has gone through the same kind of charade, and has paid no attention to requests by Her Majesty's Government to change that position.
We are not dealing with a zeal to hang, obnoxious though that is. We are dealing with deliberate violations of human rights and the rule of law. We are dealing with countries which, where their wish to violate human rights clashes with their international commitments, then withdraw from those commitments in order to be able to carry on with the hangings.
The Commonwealth has made statements about human rights to which these Governments have subscribed. There is to be another meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Durban in November. No doubt these countries will go through the same hypocritical charade and pay their respects to human rights in the communiqué with their fellow members of the Commonwealth—and will then go on violating human rights as they have done.
In Trinidad, one of the bodies entrusted with overriding human rights is called—almost hilariously—the mercy committee, which is chaired by the National Security Minister. It was the mercy committee that ordered the execution of Mr. Briggs, and it would have got away with executing Mr. Briggs if the Privy Council—which had authorised the hangings in Trinidad and Tobago—had not withdrawn that authorisation.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm stand that he has taken on this matter. When it became evident at the beginning of this month that hangings were to go ahead in Trinidad and Tobago, I telephoned my right hon. Friend's office and asked if it would communicate my concerns to the Government of Trinidad. Not only that, but my right hon. Friend wrote to me on 2 June saying:
I, too was concerned that Trinidad and Tobago was considering resumption of executions after a de facto moratorium of five years. Together with our EU partners, we have made clear to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on a number of occasions that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Baroness Symons, as Minister responsible for our relations with the Caribbean, has followed up these representations by meetings with the High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago in London.
Most recently, Baroness Symons spoke to the Minister of National Security"—
he chairs the mercy committee—
on 10 May while he was visiting Britain and in repeating our abolitionist views raised the case of Dole Chadee and his associates"—
the men who were hanged. My right hon. Friend continued:
On 17 May, after these men had lost their most recent appeal, the UK joined other EU partners in démarching the Government of Trinidad and Tobago once again in Port of Spain.
If the executions of Dole Chadee and his associates do go ahead I will be pressing for a public statement by the EU as we did recently when the Philippines resumed executions.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm and clear position he has taken and for the firm and clear position taken by the European Union.
What those countries say to persons such as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, and institutions such as the EU, the UNCHR, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and all the others, is, "Keep your nose out of our business. We are sovereign countries and we can do as we like. You are intruding on our sovereignty by saying such things." I suppose that there is an argument for that, but they cheerfully allow their sovereignty to be intruded on in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development provided me with details of the financial aid being provided by this country and the EU to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean which have the death penalty. It is significant that the two countries which receive by far the greatest aid are Trinidad and Tobago, which received £20.4 million in 1997, and Jamaica, which received £45.6 million.
It is of course countries in the Caribbean which have taken a strong stand in insisting on the retention of preferential treatment by the EU for, in particular, their bananas. Our Government have responded to that. If people will not respond to appeals to their better nature, or if they do not have a better nature, it seems to me that we should re-examine the generosity with which we deal with some of their requests for help. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development might argue that it would not be fair to the people of the country to punish them for what their Governments do, but we are told by those Governments that they have overwhelming support from the people of their countries. Much as I dislike using such pressure, if that is the only kind of pressure we have, we should use it; and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do so.
Some of us in this House, together with lawyers and other outside agencies, have been a nuisance to the Governments involved for a long time. I intend to continue being as big a nuisance as I can be until we get them to acknowledge that human rights are universal. We have just been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations declaration on human rights, article 5 of which states:
No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
These countries are undoubtedly inflicting such treatment or punishment, and it is time they stopped.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on achieving this Adjournment debate on what is a most important but often neglected subject. I also join him in commending the work of the pro bono solicitors in London who act without charge for the capital defendants before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his promotion to the Front Bench and I look forward to many contributions from him on foreign policy matters. I am speaking from the Back Benches deliberately because the subject does not fall within my Front-Bench responsibilities, and also because I am speaking from a personal position as a long-time opponent of capital punishment. I have been an

opponent since the first time I realised that such things went on, which was in the late 1950s or early 1960s, when I was about 7, 8 or 9 years old. The only exception is that the state must reserve to itself the ability to resort to the death penalty in time of war. However, this Parliament has taken that punishment away and, as I understand the position, we no longer have any form of capital punishment in this country.
Most Caribbean countries that used to be part of the British empire are now completely independent, although they are members of the Commonwealth and it must, therefore, be a matter for the people and Governments of those countries to make up their own minds about domestic criminal justice policy, subject to international convention obligations. I was concerned to learn from the right hon. Member for Gorton that several of those independent Caribbean states are resiling from their obligations under international conventions, albeit rejoining them under some sort of ruse. I deprecate that, but I am not sure what we can do about it—apart from the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman—save to note it.
I made a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to three Caribbean states in the autumn of 1996, shortly before the election. I visited Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. During my visit, I met politicians, lawyers and judges operating in the courts of the east Caribbean jurisdiction. I met the then acting chief justice of the east Caribbean, and I also met a retired chief justice of the east Caribbean who sits from time to time—at least, he did so then—as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council here in London.
The general rule is, as I discovered when I was in the Caribbean, that elected politicians tend to support the death penalty. It is popular and Governments who execute murderers have a good chance of getting re-elected. To be fair, it may also be the case that politicians believe that capital punishment is a just and proper way to punish serious criminals. It is another generalisation, but I observed that judges and lawyers tend to take a different view. They are broadly opposed to capital punishment, although obviously there are some exceptions, and they wish to keep the Privy Council as the final court of appeal.
The position among lawyers may be changing, as most lawyers in the Caribbean aged under 45 were not trained in London at the Inns of Court, but are trained and qualified in Caribbean law schools and universities. Some are also trained in the US and Canada. There is a difference in attitude towards links with the Privy Council, just as there is a difference in attitude towards the usefulness or otherwise of capital punishment.
It is not my intention this morning to discuss the role of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal. It is to draw attention to the poor facilities available to courts and lawyers in the Caribbean. There are very few law libraries. Lawyers often work alone or in small chambers, and lack proper facilities or books. The jurisdiction of the east Caribbean is huge, stretching from the northern boundaries of south America to the northern Caribbean.
The right hon. Member for Gorton made a stark point about the absence of legal aid. Most defendants charged with capital crimes are poor and many are addicted to drugs. They have no access to the high-quality lawyers whom big bank balances would command. There are as a result huge differences in the fire power available to the


prosecution and the defence: prosecutors have the advantage of funding from the state, whereas defence counsel and defendants generally do not.
The problem identified to me by one senior judge was that he often heard advocates pleading and conducting trials on behalf of capital defendants without even an out-of-date copy of "Archbold", the standard text on criminal law in this country. To appear before any court here with an out-of-date textbook would be deemed negligent in the extreme, but to do so on behalf of a client at risk of his life with no text, not even an out-of-date one, and no law reports is appalling.
The judge to whom I spoke had to deal as fairly as he could with the cases before him. His practice was to return to his chambers at the end of a working day and do all the work himself. He would place himself in the defence counsel's position, look in his own library for the relevant authorities and principles, and reconstruct the defence case. He did that as a matter of duty, as he did not want to be responsible for being in charge of jungle justice—an expression that I do not use lightly.
The judge wanted the job done well, but that was impossible. He urged me to see what this country could do to increase or improve the level of assistance to the judicial systems of those Caribbean states. I made some inquiries of the previous Government when I returned, and discovered an organisation called Bookaid. With the assistance of Sir Nicholas Bonsor, one of the present Minister's predecessors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I contacted that organisation to find out what could be done. I urge the Minister to encourage the work of Bookaid in sending out modern legal textbooks.
Assistance need not be confined to books, which tend to disintegrate in the Caribbean's humid climate, where many lawyers' offices and courts are not air conditioned. However, that does not mean that we can do nothing. Personal or collective access to the internet is available all over the world, and I urge the Government to do what they can to provide internet links. That would give lawyers and judges in the Caribbean direct access to legal judgments, precedents, textbooks and so on. Those resources are available in my chambers at the touch of a button, and they could be just as easily available in the Caribbean.
We complain, rightly, about some of the prison regimes in the United States and about how some states execute capital defendants who for many years have been lingering on death row. Some recent executions have been for crimes committed when the prisoner was under 18. Although we might have moral scruples about the justice system in the United States we have no moral responsibility for it, as that country has been independent for more than 200 years.
However, we have a moral responsibility to the Caribbean, which remained under our governance until relatively recently. We have a responsibility to ensure that the legal system, judges and lawyers are properly equipped to do justice.
The question of whether the Caribbean people require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to remain as their final court of appeal is a separate matter. I urge the Government to do all that they can to ensure that books and access to legal knowledge are available as widely as

possible to bolster the Caribbean justice system which, as the right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said, is from time to time questionable.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall make a shorter speech than I originally intended, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has summarised the issues with clarity and force. I shall confine myself to drawing the House's attention to a couple of quotations and asking some questions to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, we have worked closely on this issue for a number of years. My interest arises from the pitiful letters that I began to receive from people on death row after the release of the Birmingham Six in April 1991. I receive letters from prisoners around the world, including many on death rows in the United States, but the most pitiful are from the Caribbean. I shall quote from one letter sent by a man in Trinidad who was on death row for more than 10 years before his sentence was commuted as a result of the Pratt and Morgan judgment of the Privy Council.
In a recent letter, the man wrote:
I thought with the commutation of the death sentence I would have been given the opportunity to advance my education that would enable me to become a progressive and constructive human being so that, if and when I come out of prison, I will not have to return to the life that caused me to hurt other people to survive … Briefly, this is how I squander my days in prison … I share a cell with ten other inmates, the noise of the other inmates makes it difficult for me to sleep, read, pray or study properly. At 7 am the cell is opened. I am given butter, bread and coco water for breakfast. I then stand in an open yard hoping to get a shower. Around 10.30 am I receive rice and peas water, then I am locked back into the cell. Around 3 pm the cell is again opened and I receive supper of butter, bread and sugar water. My health has deteriorated badly. Brutality controls the prison. A few weeks ago a prisoner who was serving a life sentence was murdered by a prison officer … the deceased had lived 30 years of his life in prison … I am hoping that I will not be murdered by anyone in this institution. I continue to beg God to forgive me my sins and to forgive those who wrongfully treat me badly.
That is just one of the many similar letters that I receive, and I decline to walk by on the other side of the road.
The other passage that I want to place on record comes from a distinguished Trinidadian lawyer. Several years ago, he told a BBC television programme:
The legal aid system is a great barrier and a great handicap
to
persons on death row getting legal representation. It is very restricted … The maximum a lawyer gets if he does a legal aid matter is, I think, the equivalent of around £300. Based on that, you have very young lawyers who are sometimes very inexperienced dealing with capital cases.
The lawyer went on to say that many capital cases
are based on confessions to the police"—
we are, or at least we used to be, familiar with that phenomenon—
who do not have any real investigative machinery … You have situations where if people are just suspected, they are arrested. They are kept in police stations. They are made to sign confessions. Then you go before a jury in an environment in which you have a high crime rate, which is a lot of pressure on a jury system in a small country—and you have lawyers who are very inexperienced having to defend these people. You have a situation where the dice is loaded against the accused person.


The lawyer who made those remarks was Mr. Ramesh Maharaj, now the Attorney-General of Trinidad and playing a leading role in the drive to remove safeguards such as the Privy Council and to speed up application of the death penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that lawyers in the Caribbean tend to be against the death penalty because they know how convictions are achieved, while politicians tend to favour it because they know public opinion. Mr. Maharaj has been both lawyer and politician. As a lawyer, he was strongly against the death penalty. As a politician, he is strongly in favour of it.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Maharaj came to see me. He is charming and courteous, and he cheerfully admits to having reluctantly changed his mind on the death penalty because that is what the voters want. To me, he seems an acute example of a politician willing to do anything for votes. That phenomenon is hardly unique to Trinidad and Tobago, but as, in his case, it involves killing people, I find it particularly distasteful.
I shall conclude with three brief points, all touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. First, we are not talking of far away countries over which we have little influence. We have a lot of influence with many Caribbean Governments, and we should exercise it. Belize—not strictly in the Caribbean, but greatly affected by what happens there—depends heavily on the United Kingdom to help to preserve democracy and to protect it from its neighbours. Belize also receives much aid and other assistance. I welcome the provision of such help, but as my right hon. Friend said, if such countries will accept that much interference with their sovereignty, they must not be surprised when we ask what happens in their jails.
When the high commissioner of Jamaica tells me that his country has a sovereign right to do what it wants, I accept that that is so. However, we have a sovereign right not to provide Jamaica with aid, trade preferences and debt relief. The Government are rightly committed to an ethical foreign policy, seeking to forge a clear connection between the countries that we choose to help and the degree of democracy and civilised behaviour in them. That principle should be applied forcefully in the Caribbean. It is time to make our minds up, because there will be a massive bout of hangings in the Caribbean if certain politicians have their way. We have given Jamaica and Trinidad enormous debt relief over the past year, despite the problems mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps we should be a little less generous.
Secondly, a two-tier court of appeal has been proposed, comprising a Caribbean court of appeal for death penalty cases—no doubt it will be expected to dispose of cases swiftly—and a civil court of appeal that would remain with the Privy Council. Politicians know that many international companies with which Caribbean countries do business would not accept a Caribbean court of appeal to deal with civil actions. They are anxious to retain the business, so they have sought a device that will enable them to hang as many people as possible as quickly as they can while preserving their commercial arrangements. I hope that we will have no truck with that two-tier idea. It is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I hope that he will pass on what I have said to his colleagues.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will express himself strongly against the recent decisions by Trinidad and Jamaica to opt out of the optional protocol of the international convention on political and civil rights. They have opted back in on everything except matters relating to the death penalty. Those decisions are a provocation, and I hope that we shall be robust against them.
I welcome the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton for arranging it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done the House a great favour by raising this subject for debate. As it has developed, the debate has justified our allocating another occasion and rather more time to it. A series of complex issues has been raised, and the House ought to consider those issues at more leisure.
Capital punishment has caused me some anxiety in the recent past, not least because I feel discomfort—even repugnance—at the notion that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should still have a role when the United Kingdom has finally, once and for all, abolished the last few remaining instances in which the death penalty might be applied. I hope that I do not offend the right hon. Gentleman by saying that he has a personal Richter scale of language, but today the force of his argument and his calm and rational introduction were powerful. He did himself and the House a great deal of justice.
More than half the countries of the world retain the death penalty. Last year, four of them—China, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States of America—accounted for 80 per cent. of all executions. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my opposition to the death penalty arises from conviction.
I entered professional practice in 1968, three years after the abolition, to all intents and purposes, of the death penalty. I never had the burden carried by others at the Bar—especially when legal aid was less freely available than it is today—of being engaged in what used to be called capital cases. However, I successfully prosecuted and unsuccessfully defended cases in the High Court in Scotland in which, but for the passing into law of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, capital punishment would have applied. Nothing in my experience persuaded me that my conviction that capital punishment was wrong required any revision.
At the time when their independence was gained, politicians of the newly independent countries of the West Indies opted to retain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because it provided legal and judicial expertise not available in their domestic legal systems. It was always envisaged that the time would come when that would no longer be so, and that those countries would eventually manage their legal systems without recourse to the United Kingdom.
The constitutions of the Caribbean countries provide that their legislatures can abolish the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a constitutional amendment, usually requiring the approval of a two thirds majority. So the mechanism exists whereby those countries could, as it were, repatriate to themselves the responsibility that now rests with the Privy Council.
In recent times, some powerful arguments have been addressed as to whether that legal connection should be maintained. I commend to the House an article written by David Pannick, QC, in The Times of 15 June this year. It was a powerful article by someone whose reputation in these matters is very considerable indeed. He argues that independent nations should be encouraged to develop their own judicial, as well as their political, autonomy. He also argues that colonialism is still colonialism, no matter how benevolent its administration.
I found one passage of that article especially compelling. David Pannick states:
Our senior judges are put in the unacceptable position of being asked to administer such rules.
That is a reference back to the rules relating to capital punishment. He continues:
They have responsibility but very limited power.
It is now time for us to ask ourselves whether it is right that the Judicial Committee, and the distinguished judges who make up that committee, should continue to have the responsibility for determining issues in a form of punishment that is regarded by almost everyone in the United Kingdom as barbaric and which is one that we have expunged from our own legal system.
There is a paradox contained in the argument that the Judicial Committee should cease to have any responsibility, in that the risk might be that any influence that we in the United Kingdom have would be substantially diminished. As long as those appeals come before the Judicial Committee, it can be argued that there is a degree of influence. If we repatriate—if that expression is correct—that responsibility to the Caribbean itself and take the Judicial Committee out of the process, it could be argued by some that we would have even less influence than we have at present.
As I said when I began my remarks, I do not pretend for a moment that these are anything other than complex and difficult issues. However, as long as that responsibility remains vested in the Judicial Committee, this House cannot be regarded as exempt, or barred politically or in any other way, from passing judgment on Administrations in those countries that persist in the application of a punishment that we regard as wholly unnatural.
I was interested in the reference made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the Attorney-General of Trinidad. The Attorney-General was recently quoted as saying that
it is wrong for any country or group of countries to transplant their legal culture into the Caribbean. We respect their laws of punishment, and they must respect ours.
Very well; but just as we respect their right to pass political comment on the nature of our system, they must, in turn, respect our right to do so as well.
This debate may well cause annoyance in some countries of the Caribbean, but as long as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still has a legal responsibility for these matters, this House has a legitimate interest in them, and those countries cannot expect that we will be silent in the face of the continuing use of a punishment which people in this country find so repugnant.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I share and associate myself with the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). During the few minutes available for my speech, I want to speak on a narrower point, but one that is of considerable concern. There is one residual responsibility for Ministers and for the House in respect of dependent territories, especially those in the rather peculiar position in which Bermuda stands on the issues that we are debating.
I refer to Bermuda because, although I hate to do so, I am briefly going down the ministerial memory lane. Rather poignantly and sadly, the last time—as I recall it—that a United Kingdom Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people was the decision made in December 1977 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Owen, to endorse, or approve, the execution of Burrows and Tacklyn, one of whom had been accused and found guilty of the murder of the then Governor of Bermuda, Sir Richard Sharples. It is sad to recall that last occasion on which a UK Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people.
At that time, I was the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and have vivid memories of the incredibly difficult and awful decisions that were taken. Behind the scenes, painstaking discussions were held with Mr. Gibbon, the then Premier of Bermuda, to try to avoid that outcome. I remind the House that the flawed advice received by my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary was that
racial harmony, respect for law and order, and the security situation, would suffer … if a stay of execution were granted."—[Official Report, 5 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1015.]
As a result of the execution, a large part of Bermuda went up in flames; we had to send in British troops to restore law and order; and my right hon. Friend had to make a statement to the House on 5 December 1977.
I refer to those matters because, interestingly, capital punishment in our dependent territories—especially in respect to the position in Bermuda—is referred to in the White Paper on overseas territories that has just been published. As a result of those tumultuous events in Bermuda in 1977, the House approved an Order in Council that abolished the death penalty in the dependent territories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to Commonwealth countries and former colonies in the Caribbean where people are now being executed. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us what stance he will take on the issue of capital punishment in any future constitutional discussions with our remaining dependent territories in the Caribbean—if there is to be further constitutional development in those territories.
What is the position of Bermuda? As I understand it, Bermuda is excepted from the present Order in Council. Presumably, therefore, it remains possible for Bermudan courts to pass sentence of execution on people found guilty of murder. What will be the position? I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a clear statement of Ministers' views on that matter.
Where, inevitably, there is a residual responsibility, not only does such responsibility rest with the Judicial Committee, but it also falls on Ministers—as it did on me


in the 1970s—because the final move for anyone threatened with the death penalty is to appeal for clemency to the Queen. There are usually huge appeals for clemency—as there were in the case of Burrows and Tacklyn, when a petition from Bermuda with 6,000 signatures arrived on ministerial desks. Ministers do become involved; it is not only a judicial matter, it becomes a highly sensitive political issue.
On another occasion, as a Minister I refused—and through me, the then Secretary of State refused—to approve the execution of a man in the British Virgin Islands. That led to a most serious situation, when large crowds gathered and put our governor under siege. We had to take appropriate action to safeguard the governor.
We all accept that in the Caribbean these issues are highly emotional, and sometimes they summon the demons from the deep. However, we must take a clear and principled stand. Certainly, in cases in which the British Government, British Ministers and this House retain a residual responsibility for those matters, I hope that we shall take a firm stand, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. We must say that, however much we may respect the views and opinions of the peoples of our dependent territories, including Bermuda, when it comes to the death penalty and capital punishment, neither Ministers nor this House will support or approve it—as sadly, in 1977, we once did.

Mr. Archie Norman: I too offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on raising this issue, and I commend other hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—for their outstanding contributions to the debate. I am very much in awe of the expertise and first-hand knowledge that they bring to bear, and I was swayed by some of the points that they made during the debate.
The concern raised in this debate is right and understandable. It is to do with the question not just of capital punishment but of human rights, prison conditions and several other matters mentioned by the right hon. Member for Gorton. There can be no defence for cases of miscarriage of justice or inadequate legal support. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Briggs case—to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred—and there can be no defence for the prison conditions to which he alluded.
It is important to reflect on the fact that views about capital punishment vary in the House—although apparently not among hon. Members assembled in the Chamber today. I share the convictions expressed by other hon. Members and their opposition to capital punishment. I have opposed it all my political life. It is important to note that we have always made capital punishment an issue of personal conscience and free vote in this country.
The real question at hand is whether, in adopting a foreign policy approach to this issue, there are solutions that, first, are likely to succeed and, secondly, can fit into a foreign policy framework that is consistent and sustainable. In both cases, the balance of judgment is very difficult. This is not an easy matter: it is not simply a question of our expressing our rightful moral concern about the issues involved.
Capital punishment has always been the subject of a free vote in the United Kingdom Parliament and we must appreciate that the Caribbean countries have noted our approach. We must remember that there is a broader context to this debate. There is widespread support in the Caribbean for the continuation of capital punishment. That is not to say that issues of human rights and the legal process are not important and valid, but popular support for capital punishment in the Caribbean is considerable and, according to recent polls, runs at between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. The issue is generally included in the election manifestos of most political parties in the Caribbean and the vast majority of elected politicians support it—perhaps for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned. It is a fact that it is the democratic will of certain democratic countries that capital punishment should continue. We must therefore consider carefully the manner in which we raise the matter.
We must remember also that the number of people on death row and the high number of executions in Caribbean countries is due to a frightening increase in organised crime. That will affect the Caribbean people's perception of any comments that we may make about the issue. The social context in the Caribbean is very different from that which prevails in this country—that is perhaps obvious, but it is important to recognise that Caribbean countries are no longer idyllic island paradises that are unaffected by crime.
The number of people on death row in the Caribbean reflects, to some extent, the incidence of serious crime in those countries. There were 1,010 murders in Jamaica in 1997 compared with 748 in the United Kingdom, whose population is approximately 24 times as large. The murder rate in Jamaica is among the highest in the world, and even the Bahamas has a higher murder rate than the United States. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of murders are drugs related. This is serious, organised crime so it is understandable that the people of the Caribbean adopt a serious approach to tackling it.
Although they do nothing to mitigate the questions that have been raised about human rights and the legal process in the Caribbean, these are important background factors that should determine and inform our approach to influencing the situation. The increase in organised crime in the Caribbean is continuing at a frightening rate. Perhaps the Minister will explain how we can not only address questions of capital punishment and human rights but help those countries to deal with their crime problem, which lies at the heart of the issue.
As we are dealing with former colonies, it is important that our approach be informed by the background of attitudes in the Caribbean. The Caribbean Community and Common Market—CARICOM—has agreed to establish a Caribbean court of justice, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that our role in the Caribbean's criminal system is coming to an end. There is thus a danger that our moral outrage will accelerate our diminishing influence. The Privy Council is already deeply unpopular in some quarters in the Caribbean. We have a long history of involvement in this area, but we must recognise that, if our approach is tactless and overbearing, we will diminish rather than increase our influence.
We need to maintain an element of sustainability in foreign policy and consistency in our approach. It has been pointed out in the debate that many other countries have capital punishment. Some 30 out of 50 Commonwealth countries maintain systems of capital punishment, as do 128 countries world wide. Many of those countries, such as Uganda, India and Pakistan, are big recipients of overseas aid from the United Kingdom. In pursuing our foreign policy objectives, we must consider carefully the attitudes that we adopt to capital punishment in those countries—especially since it is often hard to maintain that their systems of justice are perfect. It is a question not of ignoring the problem but of ensuring that we maintain—and are seen to maintain—a degree of consistency.
We have relatively limited leverage in this area because of the background factors and public opinion in Caribbean countries. The aid budget is important and perhaps more could be done through that budget to tackle the crime problem in the Caribbean. Perhaps we could provide the sort of legal support outlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. There are solutions to these problems and things that can be done to address them. It is right to raise the issues, and we must be persuasive and forthright in so doing. Capital punishment is a disturbing issue and I find convincing, and sympathise with, the points made by right hon. and hon. Members this morning.
We operate, however, in a world where practical results matter. We have granted the Caribbean countries democratic rights and we must respect their decisions. The democratic weight of opinion in those countries is overwhelming, and we must respect the people's views. So our approach must be human rights based. We must do all that we can to influence prison conditions, the treatment of people and the handling of legal cases. There is every reason to adopt quiet persuasion and to consider what can be done through the aid budget and the United Nations. However, as an ex-colonial power, it behoves us to be extremely sensitive and persuasive in our handling of the issue. It may be that a light touch is needed.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I strongly welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to apply for this debate. He raised an important issue, and the quality of contributions this morning—it sounds patronising, but it happens to be true—has been outstanding. Our message will ring across the oceans to each of the Caribbean states mentioned this morning.
I begin with the pleasant task of welcoming the first contribution by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) from the Front Bench. I am sure that his thoughtful and well-researched speech has been well received both here and outside this place. He has set himself a high standard to live up to.
The background to the debate is that, after capital punishment had been in disuse for some years, a number of states began to withdraw from some of the important international human rights conventions last year, giving a strong signal of intent to resume capital punishment. The circumstances of that have been detailed by hon. Members. That was followed by executions in the

Bahamas and in St. Kitts-Nevis. Earlier this month, there were nine executions, about which the House has heard, in Trinidad and Tobago. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said, the comments made by Prime Minister P. J. Patterson a little under two weeks ago suggest that Jamaica is about to take the same course.
We should place it on record that revulsion is felt by any civilised human being at the crime of murder—there is no disagreement about that. Murder is generally considered to be an horrific crime and, in its most extreme cases, revulsion for the crime and the criminal is a natural and understandable human reaction.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments concerning the death penalty. My own views, like those of every hon. Member who has spoken, have been consistent for many years, although I do not have a closed mind and we must constantly re-examine the arguments. It is worth reiterating that taking away a human life by judicial process is futile. All studies suggest that capital punishment has no long-term deterrent effect and, as has been said in the debate, we know where our own judicial processes have been flawed. Happily, capital punishment has not been used recently, although it would have been carried out in certain cases in a previous era. We know that innocent people have been executed and, for them, there can never be any attempt at recompense.
The House has consistently rejected the reintroduction of the death penalty over many years. In 1997, the Government recognised that and Parliament abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy and removed it from armed forces legislation. We have ratified, or will ratify, various protocols, such as protocol 6 of the European convention on human rights and the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. As hon. Members have said, foreign policy has to take account of the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Under the UK presidency of the European Union, we agreed EU guidelines to press for abolition of the death penalty.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to consistency. We have raised specific cases in many countries, including the United States, China, Iran, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Philippines and others. We have also made our policy on the death penalty clear in the course of normal contact with many other countries. We are not singling out Caribbean states because they are small or even because of our close and friendly relations. This is an important issue of principle and humanity—principle is universal and non-discriminatory, as is the bond of humanity—so there is no difficulty in saying to the House that we do not need to keep silent on it.
We have a particularly close relationship with the countries of the Caribbean and, at the end of this week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to the European-Latin American and Caribbean summit in Rio de Janeiro. He will make a major contribution on the issue of drugs and the need for co-operation across Latin America and the Caribbean and the consumer countries of Europe. Britain already co-operates strongly on a bilateral basis in parts of that region, but we need to improve our response and recognise that, in the modern world, drugs are often the motor for crimes of excessive greed and, in particular, violent crime. I believe that such co-operation is addressing some of the fundamentals which, ironically, dictate what the House is discussing this morning—murder and capital punishment.
A particular concern for the United Kingdom is ensuring that the anxieties of our close friends in the Caribbean are given proper weight in the summit proceedings. It is right that the United Kingdom, of all countries, should shoulder that task. The historical ties that bind us are strong and the links run deep in cities such as Manchester, which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton represent. Many of our constituents come from the West Indies and their children and their children's children are respected constituents. Their influence is powerful and for the good. We trade extensively with the Caribbean and have close contacts at every level. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, numerous initiatives, beginning with the UK-Caribbean regional forum in Nassau in February last year, to develop and enhance our relationship and reflect the depth and closeness of these links in a modern context.
Sadly, we find ourselves in fundamental disagreement with close friends over the specific issue of capital punishment, but the frequency and depth of our dialogue means that we can seriously engage Caribbean Governments. We understand the context that exists in many Caribbean countries and their particular problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) gave us a graphic account of the strength of feeling that exists. We do not deny that and we do not intend to diminish the impact of violent crime in Caribbean countries.
Crime, and particularly violent crime such as murder, is increasing. A high proportion of murders are domestic—that is the case everywhere—but many are related to the increasing drugs menace. The islands find themselves on the drug trafficking routes from source to user countries, so they are vulnerable to the extraordinary violence that results from that horrific trade. The consequences are tragic.
We have sympathy for the Governments who valiantly attempt to enforce the law and make their communities safer, often with extremely limited resources. We need to be mindful of the fears of citizens, their demands for tough action by Governments and the pressure under which Caribbean Governments are put by the action of other states.
We want to establish that, although we sympathise with the difficulties of Caribbean Governments, we fundamentally disagree that capital punishment is the solution. However, we can do more than stand on the sidelines. We are finding ways of helping Caribbean Governments with the problems of crime and criminal justice. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made that

very point. The work of our police advisers and technical co-operation officers in the region involves training Caribbean police forces in modern techniques, and building the capacity of those institutions to improve crime prevention and fight the growing problems of youth crime and violence. That is a practical step towards introducing real deterrence.
We will build on our work on prison reform; I heard the comments of hon. Members on conditions in some of the Caribbean states, in particular Jamaica. When my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Jamaica in October last year, she raised the issue of prison conditions with the Jamaican authorities. We are working hard in countries such as Belize to find alternatives to prison, because conditions are often horrendous. We will help with the introduction of greater use of non-custodial prisons. That may not help in respect of capital crimes, but it will alleviate the pressure on the prison system. We are assisting with criminal justice reform and helping to simplify court procedures and improve legislative drafting.
A number of suggestions have come from hon. Members. I shall happily discuss with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton the funding for the Caribbean death penalty crime project, which he discussed. It will help if we take that forward bilaterally at first and I am more than sympathetic to the concept, which is consistent with what the Foreign Office is doing through the human rights project fund.
I am also sure that we can find imaginative ways of helping to ensure that relevant, up-to-date information is available through modern technology such as the internet, and possibly through the British Council. We can certainly look at those issues. We are funding Caribbean Justice, which is holding a conference on the death penalty that will bring together lawyers and other interested parties. We also intend to help there.
Development assistance was referred to, but I must disappoint my hon. Friends on that. I shall tell them why. We have no bilateral programme with some countries—the question of consistency is important in that—but we are determined to help the most marginal countries out of poverty. Poverty creates the conditions for crime and we would turn our back on the reality of violent crime if we cut all forms of assistance. We are not prepared to cut programmes for those who help with judicial reform.
I have not been able to deal with some issues, and I shall write to hon. Members about them, but the message from this important debate will travel to the Caribbean. Strong feelings are held in this country as well as in the Caribbean and we have done the House and our friends in the Caribbean a service by raising this important issue.

Teenage Pregnancies

11 am

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for the opportunity to open a debate on this subject.
The Government have just published a report on teenage pregnancy prepared by their social exclusion unit. The standard of the document makes it easy to read, and it has lots of useful diagrams and heartfelt comments from concerned adults, like the Prime Minister, who talks about our shameful record—rather like a Victorian parson pontificating in the pulpit. The best bits are the quotations from teenagers themselves, which illustrate the reality of their predicament. I fear that the rest of the report is much of the same: it refers to more task forces, more focus groups and more concerned adults who will minister to those teenagers, while studiously avoiding some of the simple remedies offered by the pharmaceutical industry, most essentially, emergency contraception and possibly easier terminations. There are one or two novel bits, such as punishment for teenage fathers, including losing their car or having their benefit cheques docked by £5 a week.
If we are to discuss a subject as serious as this, we must put it into perspective. When devising solutions for perceived problems, it is important to look, first, at the comparison between this country and other parts of the world and, secondly, at the number of people involved. Although it has often been said that we have the worst record in Europe, we do not have the worst record in the world. Other English-speaking countries, particularly the United States, New Zealand and Canada, have higher numbers than ours. In England, there are some 1.7 million teenage girls in the 14 to 18 age group. The report says that 90,000 of them become pregnant each year; it does not say that they are all unmarried or not in partnerships. However, that is only 5 per cent. of that age group. If we take the 14 to 16 age group, about which there is a great deal of concern, the figures are 880,000—under 1 million—and 8,000 live births, which is less than 1 per cent.
I am not sure that I agree with the Prime Minister that that is an altogether shameful record. I agree that it is 8,000 too many births to girls in that age group, but the fact remains that 99 per cent. of our young girls are not getting pregnant each year. It is important to bear those facts in mind because we sometimes become quite hysterical and get things out of proportion, which does no good.
The experience of pregnancy and birth for those very young girls may be extremely traumatic. No one would pretend that, at that age, they are ready to raise children: they are hardly more than children themselves. However, we cannot marry them off or expect them to set up partnerships with the fathers of their children, who are usually just as young as they are. Nor can we simply walk away from the problem.
I am not altogether scornful about or averse to the Government's suggestion that hostels may have a role to play in helping those young people to get their act together, get back into education and begin to pick up the threads of their young lives so that they do not find themselves stuck in the groove of early and continuous maternity until it is almost too late.

Lorna Fitzsimons: First, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate? Does

she agree that when we talk about hostels, it is important to point out that the report specifically refers to independent supported accommodation for under-18-year-old single parents? Does she agree that, as politicians, we must act responsibly and be specific, because the media have not?

Mrs. Gorman: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. I am sure that she is aware that many of those young children are in care homes to begin with, so the prospect of their being in an institution—I hate that word—or some kind of accommodation where they can be looked after and which specifically caters for their new maternal condition has merit.
The very best solution would be for those young girls to stay with their own families—with mum. It would certainly be much cheaper. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a single parent raising a child alone will cost the taxpayer at least £83,000 in benefits from the child's birth to when it reaches the age of 18. That is without the cost of housing benefit, if that person lives alone, is unable to work and therefore cannot support herself as she might like to.
A child raised in a conventional family costs some £50,000 from birth to the age of 18. About a fifth of that—£10,000—is met by child benefit, so it seems perfectly obvious, from a financial perspective, that the best policy would be to support and encourage the families of those young girls to keep them at home instead of paying the teenagers to tough it out on their own. The plans that the Chancellor devises should take that into account.
I should like a pound for every time that I have been to a Chancellor in the run-up to a Budget to try to make that point to him. I say "him" because it is always a him. We are yet to have a woman Chancellor, who might be more sympathetic to that point of view. The best place to raise children is within the existing family, and that is also the most cost-effective course.

Mr. John Healey: Although it is true that we have a male Chancellor, does the hon. Lady not concede that for the first time we have three female Ministers in the Treasury team? That must be a step forward.

Mrs. Gorman: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: we are always the bridesmaids, never the bride. I shall wait to see the outcome.
How do teenagers view these matters? Girls who find themselves pregnant are often obliged to leave their family home, simply because, in that way, the welfare system will pick up the bills. Why should parents who live in crowded accommodation encourage their daughter to stay at home, with the extra costs, the inconvenience and a noisy mouth to feed—the new baby—when the welfare state dictates otherwise? When Governments do more, people do less, and when something is subsidised we tend to get more of it.
I do not believe that young women have babies to get flats. That is a calumny; it is not true, and we should stop saying it. I certainly do not support the tabloid press, which often makes that extremely chauvinistic point. However, we must stop subsidising teenage sex so much


and must promote the role of the conventional family both in dealing with their own teenage children and in taking in their children's children wherever possible.
That is what used to happen—perhaps before the welfare state began. Although the welfare state means well, it does not always produce the right solutions to the problems that it perceives. We should not take the line that because the welfare state has not achieved its goals, we need more of it. Sometimes we need to stand back and ask ourselves whether we can do things better. There are other options.

Shona McIsaac: Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not just stand back, but take a step back? Is not the most cost-effective solution ensuring that young women do not become pregnant in the first place? Really good contraception education would give them the self-confidence to say "No" or "Not yet".

Mrs. Gorman: I could not agree more, but I feel like saying "I wish". In fact, there is a great deal of education of this kind, but it seems to go over the heads of school children. One teenager is quoted as saying, more or less, "Our religious education teacher gave us the facts. She was shaking with nerves, and I felt embarrassed for her." That, I imagine, was the end of the lesson.
Not all girls who become pregnant come from conventional homes. Some, possibly quite a large number, are already in care, and we should consider the nature of the places where they are in care. I recently visited a very nice, very modern care home for children from difficult backgrounds, which contained one young teenage girl and six boys. They all slept in the same corridor; admittedly, the girl's room was at one end and the boys' room was at the other. The staff told me how much "teasing" the girl received from the boys, and expressed doubts about the merits of the arrangement. Their solution was to admit a few more girls to balance things out. Mine would have been to take the girl out of the hostel and put her with other girls.
I am a great advocate of allowing girls to grow up together. I went to a girls' school, and I do not think that it did me much harm. Girls often thrive when they have the support of their own sex. Politically correct ideas about modelling care on the orthodox, traditional family mix of the sexes are not always right. Young girls and boys in care are being brought up by people who are basically strangers, and who work on a rota basis, coming in for eight hours and then disappearing again. We should ask ourselves whether the social services have got it right, given the inordinately large number of children who come from disturbed, dysfunctional or broken homes.
The report quotes one young woman as saying:
It sometimes seems as if sex is compulsory but contraception is illegal".
Quite. Young people have more than enough exposure to sex as a supposedly jolly pastime, but, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) pointed out, an obstacle course awaits them when they need access to contraception in emergencies.
Our abortion rates are much higher than those of other European countries. They are particularly high in the leafy suburbs of the southern counties, where families are more

clued up and girls are more ambitious. When a girl becomes pregnant accidentally, her family ensures that she is given treatment so that she can get on with her young life and develop her career and prospects, rather than having to raise young children before she has completed her own preparation for adult life.
The cheapest contraception of all—if it is made available quickly enough—is emergency contraception, which costs just £1.35. Some girls, however, wait much too long before drawing attention to their pregnancies. Some go through with it, give birth and then dump the baby.
Pontificating on its high horse the other day, the Daily Mail observed that at the beginning of the last century about 5 per cent. of young women were becoming pregnant, whereas 40 per cent. more were becoming pregnant nowadays—although 40 per cent. of a relatively small number is not a huge amount. Girls today, however, do not face the prospect of the workhouse. They do not smother their children at birth, as they frequently did in those barmy early Victorian days, or dump their babies on the steps of workhouses. If the numbers have risen, that is partly because girls are no longer intimidated and made to feel desperately ashamed, as if becoming pregnant was all their own fault. They are more open about it. We should welcome that, and not prate too much about the high incidence of pregnancy.
We are told that the number of such pregnancies is much lower in Holland. That is generally believed to be because Dutch society is much more open: parents discuss all aspects of sexuality with their children, and access to general practitioners is much easier, as is access to help for those who unintentionally become pregnant.
I do not think that we can change our own society overnight. Our prurient attitude is demonstrated by the amount of bonking that we see on television: it is far more frequent than the weather forecasts. Moreover, we are not given the gloomy news; we are only given the jolly news. These television sessions always seem to finish with a burst of pleasure for the parties involved. In real life, that might apply to one of the parties, but young women often find that they are not as thrilled and delighted as they expected to be. They take part in sexual activity because of peer pressure, but it may not turn out to be such a treat as they were led to believe.

Shona McIsaac: This country may have given the world page three, sex on television and saucy seaside postcards, but are we not still phenomenally prudish when it comes to discussing sexual relationships and contraception? Our teenage girls still believe the myths that were around when we were young—"You can't get caught the first time," and so forth. I return to my main point: the solution is good sex education and contraception advice at a young age, so that the problem can be sorted out before girls start having sex.

Mrs. Gorman: As the hon. Lady may or may not know, I got quite a lot of stick for signing an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and saying that I thought even children in the top forms at primary schools should be given some information of this kind. Given that they can switch on the television any day and see such activities—whether or not they register—there is something to be said for more openness.
The hon. Lady brings me to my next point. The report deals at some length with education. It is clearly part of the Government's aim to improve education, and there is no doubt that children are receiving mixed messages; but if we beef up sex education in schools, will youngsters take any notice? Frankly, I doubt it.
Young men—driven by their testosterone hormones, and in a condom culture—seem still to be oblivious of the damage that they may be doing to their partner, whom they obviously sought, or to have any sense of responsibility for the end product—the child—of the partnership. However, as I said, we cannot expect young boys to settle down with their young girlfriends or wives—the mothers of their children—to set up a conventional child-rearing environment.

Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Lady on initiating this debate. However, do not the report and its appendices—using studies from across the country—establish and state pretty comprehensively that more effective education on sex and relationships and preparation for parenthood reduce sexual activity among young people, increase their ability to feel less compelled to have sex at an early age, and increase the likelihood, particularly among boys, that they will take their responsibilities and obligations more seriously?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but he should not forget that, according to the Prime Minister, our record is shameful and getting worse. I believe—although I have not been a teacher for a very long time—that we have done a great deal to open up the subject in schools. Nevertheless, as I said, I do not think that youngsters are listening. I believe—being very sensible about it—that, at puberty, young people, driven by the rush of their hormones, often become overwhelmed by the situation. I therefore believe that, very possibly, too much stress is being placed on sex education in schools.
A quote from one young girl provided some extremely important information. She said:
If someone came and gave me a baby to look after for a day, I would never have fell pregnant.
Perhaps that gives us a clue as to what constitutes real sex education: the reality of what happens after the mechanics of sex are finished.
The United States—which has a bigger problem with teenage pregnancies than we do—is trying that type of approach. Reports from the United States suggest that young women who go back to schools with a young baby—to explain to students the consequences for one's life, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of taking care of a fractious child—are possibly having a bigger impact and doing more good in dissuading other young girls from simply conforming and undertaking the mechanical aspects of sex without thinking about the long-term problems.
In the past, we should have advised young girls who became pregnant to put up their babies for adoption. It is still an option which reasonably should be brought to their attention. Young girls should not be pressurised into keeping their babies. If a young girl is not ready, able or willing to raise her own child, there are many excellent families without children who would love to take in those babies, who would perhaps then be given a better start in life. I am not judgmental on those issues, but acknowledge

that we have consistently made it more difficult for people to adopt. Although we complain that there has been a great increase in the number of babies, there is also a great shortage of babies for adoption. We should examine the causes of that situation.

Mr. Hope: The hon. Lady made a point about parenthood education. She may not be aware that, on the same day as the report on teenage pregnancy was published, the Government published a report on personal, social and health education which specifically described how we might introduce parenthood education into the school curriculum. She may also not be aware that the new national framework on personal, social and health education in schools includes specific learning outcomes on family life and the responsibilities that parenthood brings. Does she not agree that the Government are grasping the issue quite firmly?

Mrs. Gorman: As I said, 95 per cent. of our teenagers do not become pregnant, and less than one per cent. of teenagers in the younger 14 to 16 group become pregnant. Should we therefore spend so much time in schools trying to give them a warning which, presumably, they have already taken on board? Although it is important that the matter should be brought to their attention, I do not think that it has to be done only in school lessons.
As I said, teenagers can be informed through magazines and by their own social activities. Moreover, perhaps witnessing the reality of child rearing would have a greater effect on them, without necessarily filling their heads with lots of stuff about biological matters and the mechanics of the sexual act—which they often regard as rather amusing or completely irrelevant. Knowing about ovaries and testes and what can be got up to with them is not necessarily of much help to a child who is under pressure from the boy sitting next to her to go round to the bicycle sheds for a little bit of rum-ti-tum.
I do not think that the Government's proposals—for more of the same—as stated in the report, will achieve a desirable conclusion.
We must, of course, try to raise young women's level of self-respect. If we tell it to them straight and teach them that their whole future may be decided on that one act, perhaps they will develop a little more resistance and reason to say no. It is true that the incidence of pregnancy among young people is much greater among those who are less well educated and from less-well-off families, neighbourhoods and parts of the country. There is therefore something to be said about the need to raise their level of self-respect. If we could do that, I believe that it would have a great impact on the teenage pregnancy rate.
We do not need yet another task force, as the Government propose, or more talk about relationship education and feelings. For most teenagers, sex is a quick business—a physical and transient experiment that is not about permanent relationships. As I said, I do not think that those young people are ready to settle down into conventional family home life, or that it would even make sense for them to do so.
I should like to deal with the issue of contraception, although some other hon. Members present are much better qualified to do so. Last Sunday, the Minister for Public Health appeared on the "Dimbleby" programme, and I must say—I hope without seeming smarmy—that


she generally acquitted herself very well. Nevertheless, she went out of her way to say that the morning-after pill—which, as I said, is the cheapest way of dealing with the problem—is:
a prescription medicine only and the report makes no recommendation about changing its status because … changing its status would involve its licence, re-assessing its medical effectiveness"—
as if that could not easily be done if the Government were of a mind to do it. Those are excuses.
The morning-after pill is an effective remedy that has been tried and tested and is widely used in France. It has proved that it can play an important role in helping young women who become pregnant, realise their situation and want to do something about it. We should not place obstacles in their way.
On the morning-after pill, I think that the Minister was bowing a little to those sections of our society who do not approve of any form of abortion, or who even—in extreme cases—do not approve of contraception. Those people would rather see a young woman go through with an unwanted pregnancy, or even with more than one such pregnancy—changing her life and robbing her of her teenage years—than give her the chance to develop into a fully rounded adult. That position seriously needs to be reconsidered. I should like the Government to address the issue in an intelligent and adult way.
Let me say one last word, about the future. Many of the sons and daughters of teenage mothers grow up in a fatherless environment. I personally believe that families need fathers. Mothers need help with raising their children. Boys in particular need role models. They need someone to discipline them and help control them so that they do not grow up into permanent adolescents. In some societies in other parts of the world, single-parent families are almost becoming the norm. America has a particular problem. In such societies, there is a problem of permanent adolescence. Young males never settle down into normal adult life patterns of work, bringing home the salary and helping to support a family. The pattern of mother-run families is perpetuated generation after generation. That pattern is reflected on some of our inner-city estates, where single motherhood is not uncommon. Teenage boys rampage through the streets, vandalising, terrifying other residents, stealing cars and much else and vying with each other in laddish and loutish behaviour. They are a menace. That is an offshoot of our failure to tackle the problem at its roots.
The recent football world cup was a good example. We saw on television grown males behaving like uncontrolled adolescent children. I believe that to be one result of young people growing up without a strong male influence. There is no doubt in my mind that all Governments have a lot to answer for in these matters. Sentiment is not enough. Common sense and counselling may be called for, but tough love is also needed. If we want to reduce the misery and mayhem caused by some of our policies over the years, it is important to consider examples from the past and see whether we cannot do more to re-establish the conventional permanent family relationship and, if need be, direct more financial resources in that direction so that it becomes an attractive alternative to raising children alone.
Taking responsibility is part of living in a civilised society. That does not mean leaving one young woman responsible for bringing up children. It means re-establishing the role of the male in bringing up children, making him feel that it is an important part of his job. We should not simply lecture teenage girls in schools. Sometimes we must lecture ourselves, because we allow sentiment for the child in the predicament to overcome our common sense. It is the policy of the Conservative party to reinstate the role, importance and responsibility of the conventional family unit.
Marriage, even though it does not always work, is by and large a good thing for families. Long-term partnerships are next best, although sadly the statistics say that they do not last anything like as long as marriages. I do not want to see people locked into miserable, unhappy marriages for the rest of their lives, but if the Government seriously put their mind to it, they could do a great deal more to make marriage an attractive option. In the end, is it not the children of teenage mothers whom we should think about? If you ask the children, they say that they would prefer to be in a family in which mum and dad at least come home to see them, talk to them and help them now and again.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on obtaining this important debate. I agree with a lot of what she said, although not all of it. May I declare an interest, not as a pregnant teenager but as a member of London Brook, an organisation that gives advice to young people on sex, contraception and abortion. I am also a member of Population Concern, an international charity that runs projects in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Peru and South Africa.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome the publication of the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy. On the whole, it adopts a pragmatic and positive approach to the highly sensitive issues of sex, teenage pregnancies, contraception, sex education in schools and abortion. None of us can be happy with the fact that teenage pregnancy rates in the United Kingdom are twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands. The 90,000 teenage pregnancies a year in England alone create an awful lot of misery and wreck many lives.
None of us can be happy about young people's lack of accurate knowledge about contraception, which is in part responsible for the fact that among under-16s over half the pregnancies are terminated and that a third of conceptions in the under-20s end in abortion. Prevention has to be our top priority. We cannot carry on living in a country in which many teenagers have such low expectations for themselves and are so ignorant and so confused by mixed messages from society which, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, suggest that sex is compulsory but contraception is undesirable.
I welcome the response of Ministers at the Department of Health to the report. Their commitment to the £60 million strategy to galvanise work across government to prevent teenage pregnancies seems absolute. I hope that Ministers at the Department of Health will push harder, as the hon. Lady argued, to press for over-the-counter


sales of emergency contraception, sometimes referred to as the morning-after pill. I hope that they will discuss with their colleagues in Northern Ireland the need to introduce the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 into the Province to ensure that young people there have the same right to
abortion as their sisters in mainland Britain.
The Department of Health must realise, too, that access to services and contraception needs to be expanded. I am sure that they know that the health authorities are currently cutting grants to organisations such as London Brook and others. This is a problem that cannot be neglected, especially in the light of the report.
Judging by the performance of the Department for Education and Employment in this area and the scarcely concealed negative attitude of the Secretary of State, there is even cause to doubt the intention of the Department to implement some of the policies suggested in the social exclusion unit report to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Indeed, I would go further: having followed the subject for the past 15 years or so, I have little doubt that if there were an Ofsted report on the performance of the Department, it would be deemed to be failing.
We have to ask whether it is right that young women should continue to suffer and lead miserable lives because of the biblical self-righteousness and dark 1950s morality of a few people in the Department for Education and Employment. Let us take the issue of school nurses handing out contraceptives. The Secretary of State is reported to have said that it would be allowed only over his dead body. I hope that it will not come to that; we really do not want blood on the floor, especially my right hon. Friend's blood. I hope that he will carry on doing good work in other fields. It is just that he needs to do some more good work in this area.
It is clear that Parliament will need to monitor closely the activities of the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there is no backsliding. I feel that we should consider making personal, social and health education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) referred, compulsory in schools and part of the national curriculum. Bizarrely, at the moment few girls in primary schools are told anything about puberty.
There is also the difficult position of the Catholic Church. The theology of the Vatican on contraception is out of line with the practice of many Catholic worshippers in the United Kingdom. Like everyone else, I wish the Holy See a long life, but when the present Pope dies I hope that the new incumbent will do what is long overdue and moderate the theology, which after all in historical terms is relatively new, to allow young Catholics to use contraception without the guilt of sin, hypocrisy and lies. It is time that the Catholic Church woke up to the fact that for the young, sex can be fun.
I was delighted to see Geri Haliwell, formerly Ginger Spice, promoting the use of contraceptives in the Philippines in her new role as United Nations ambassador. Surely she was right when she said:
I believe that if you can't control your fertility, you can't control your life, and if you're having sex, you've got to be protected against unwanted pregnancy and infection. It's everybody's fundamental right.

Of course, given the current state of Catholic theology, no one can object to the priesthood in the Philippines criticising Geri Haliwell. However, to refer to her, one of the icons of youth, as "
blasphemous" and to hint at violence by saying,
In a Muslim country she would be clobbered",
seems uncharitable and unchristian. We must remember that, whereas the Pope is an icon to the past, Geri is an icon to the future. I hope that Catholic theology on this subject will change.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak so I shall conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the social exclusion unit on producing a wonderful report. It is a pity that it has 185 footnotes referring to 185 research documents. I have read the report in full, but I have not yet read the research documents—I hope that I soon will.
In truth, the report could have been published 20 years ago. For two decades, British society and the political establishment—mainly Members of Parliament—have ducked the subject. It is time for action.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on obtaining the debate. I looked forward to reading the social exclusion unit report, but I was instantly depressed by the Prime Minister's letter at the beginning. Yes, we do have the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe-90,000 each year, 8,000 of whom are under 16—but as the Prime Minister goes on he begins to sound more and more like the Vicar of St. Albion. He may disapprove of young people's sexual activities and I do not believe that it is a good idea for young people to have sex at all, but they do, frequently. We are dealing with reality. They are following the message in every magazine, film, television play, soap opera or advertisement. Renault is now advertising its cars by saying that size matters and I understand that Haagen-Dazs ice cream tastes much better licked off one's partner. I will not go on because I do not want to excite you too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but such things must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) mentioned the Spice Girls. I am delighted that Geri Haliwell is now promoting contraception worldwide. However, their image of immature sexuality has been pushed at young people, particularly those under 10, for several years. They knew what they wanted, what they really, really wanted, and they pushed it on to young people. However, to do justice to them, they are trying to do something about it now.
In contrast, the hypocrisy of this country is breathtaking. We tut-tut about young people's sexual activity while, in comparison with other countries, we provide very little sex education and contraception advice. I should like to bet that some of those who are tut-tutting are rejoicing as share prices soar because of some commodity having been promoted with a sexual message. They are not worried about taking the profits, but they do not want to do anything about the consequences.
However much we might want to turn back the clocks to an imagined age of innocence where no one had sex until they were married and then only under the blankets with the lights off, we cannot do that. The genie is out of the bottle and we must equip our young people to cope.
In many ways, it is an excellent report and I congratulate the Government on the fact that, backed by wonderful tables and statistics, it spells out clearly the major reasons for teenage pregnancy. It includes low expectations, disadvantaged children, children from broken homes or care homes, and ignorance. Study after study has shown that sex education does not make young people more sexually active. In fact, the reverse is true and the report backs that view.
I have already dealt with the problem of mixed messages and the Government accept that that is a reality. They intend to deal with the ignorance and to spend a great deal of money on a campaign to warn against teenage pregnancy and parenthood and the importance of contraception. That is excellent. Local campaigns and the media are mentioned and we are told that there will be more sex education, starting in primary schools—full marks. It sounds great, but it is a little bit woolly.
Will we have advertisements for condoms? We have advertisements for everything else on television, but do we ever see an advertisement for the antidote to all this sex? Why not have a message before "Neighbours" or "EastEnders". For goodness' sake, let us have condoms on television. We are talking about not just pregnancy but sexually transmitted disease, which is another serious problem.
We have the inevitable mention of joined-up action—I hate that phrase. It talks about local joined-up action and national joined-up action. The problem is that teenagers already know about joined-up action, because that is what they are doing all the time.
The report talks about local and national support co-ordinators with an implementation unit and monitoring. It all sounds a little ominous. Where is the detail? Where are the extra teachers and school nurses? School nurses are a rare breed and their numbers have been cut horribly recently. Where are the family planning doctors—another disappearing species? I was one of them for 30 years and I have disappeared into this House. General practitioners and teachers do not have time to do this work. Parents still have the option of removing children from sex education classes.
According to the report, sex education will not be a statutory requirement. Citizenship will be statutory, so why not sex education? It is a basic activity of every human being if the species is to survive, but it is not statutory in our education system. It must be. The recommendations are not strong enough.
Teenage mothers are dealt with in great detail in the report and I thought that that section was superb. However, that is only a small proportion of the problem. We have heard no mention of the view held by many hon. Members and those outside the House that young women become pregnant to get a council flat. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) recently tabled a parliamentary question asking how many new housing association lettings—we could not get the council figures—out of a total of 30,000 new lettings per annum had gone to young mothers with babies. The answer was 2,000. So we are talking about a small proportion of teenagers. We all know of cases where we think that someone has got pregnant to get a flat, but it is anecdotal evidence and the figures do not support it.
Like other hon. Members I welcome the proposals for hostels. That is much better than a lonely council flat in a tower block. The Minister and I know all about tower blocks. I used to work in Hackney and Islington and I know that they are grim. However, the use of hostels must not be compulsory and I hope that the Minister will emphasise that.
I am concerned about the section on prevention. That is understandable because I spent 25 or 30 years in birth control clinics dealing with sexual health. I spent five years in the Brandon centre, which is a good youth advisory centre in Kentish Town. I was a co-founder and trustee of a similar centre called Off the Record in my borough and I know very well the Magic Roundabout in Kingston, which is mentioned in the report. They all give excellent contraception advice and counselling.
The specialist centres for young people are excellent and we need many more, but many more young people go to ordinary family planning clinics, which are anonymous and efficient, with properly trained doctors and nurses who give a rigorous service; but sadly, they have been a soft option for local authority cuts over the past 20 years and are disappearing fast.
Young people are told by their health authorities that the GP will provide the services but in my experience they do not want to go to the GP because they will see Mum's friend in the waiting room, the receptionist knows Dad or the GP might tell Mum, however much he is discouraged from doing so. Young people are happier to mix with all ages in general clinics.
There has been a meeting this morning in the Jubilee Room, organised by the Pro-choice Alliance and Marie Stopes International, which have conducted a survey on access to abortion for young people; 20 per cent. of our GPs are still anti-abortion and many of those will not refer young people on to doctors who will deal with them sympathetically. We all know that the provision for abortion nationwide is very patchy. That is not dealt with very well in the report.
As an experienced doctor in the field, I warn against too much preaching at young people; they get put off, especially at the first visit. The report says that the advice to doctors is to be strengthened. That frightens me, because doctors are already nervous about advising under-16s. We should give non-judgmental help first and deal with the emergency, and then gain young people's confidence and counsel and direct. We must not preach in the first place. I know that it does not work, because I have the experience.

Mr. Hope: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to page 90 of the report, which says:
Preaching is rarely effective. Whether the Government likes it or not, young people decide what they are going to do about sex and contraception. Keeping them in the dark or preaching at them makes it less likely they'll make the right decision."?
The Government have already taken on board the message that she is offering.

Dr. Tonge: Yes, but in other parts of the report it is emphasised that GPs will be given more guidance. Colleagues in general practice have told me that they are afraid of dealing with matters in a straightforward way and feel that there is pressure on them to counsel, which neither they nor the young people want.
The young person who meets a barrage of advice and counselling at the first visit is never seen again, in my experience. In my capacity as a senior doctor, I have had to tell off colleagues for putting young women off. The people about whom one is most worried, one does not see again. The same applies to young men. We must expand family planning facilities generally and leave it to the very well-trained doctors and nurses in those clinics.
The Government have already chickened out of making it easier to obtain condoms, emergency contraception and the regular contraceptive pill. Why cannot school nurses and GPs dispense condoms? Where is the progress on the morning-after pill, which I prefer to call emergency contraception? It needs to be available at pharmacies and from nurses, whether in schools or at GPs' surgeries. It is safer than aspirin and paracetamol. Why is it not simply on sale?
In Spain, one can buy the regular contraceptive pill from a chemist's. Why cannot we accept that some drugs are safer than drugs that are already on sale in pharmacies? Why do not we let people have a free choice? That way, many unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with and young people will be guided to clinics where they can get proper advice and counselling.
The Government are good at dealing with the consequences of teenage sexual behaviour but weak, in the report, on preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. The priorities are wrong. The Government are running scared of the tabloids and all the zealots who fill our mailbags, accusing doctors and nurses of encouraging immorality. They have the opportunity to tackle those people, and I wish that they would do it.

Mr. John Healey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. Her speech was informative and refreshingly iconoclastic.
In the area that I represent—Wentworth is part of Rotherham—we have a problem with high rates of teenage pregnancy. In parts of my constituency, one in six of all pregnancies are of women between 15 and 19 and one in 20 are of under-16s. The most telling index of the problem is the fact that eight out of the 22 wards in Rotherham have higher rates of pregnancy in those between 15 and 19 than in all the other age groups put together. There is a direct correlation with unemployment rates and other local deprivation indices.
Teenage pregnancy is both a symptom and a cause of social exclusion. In Rotherham, unemployment is the highest in Yorkshire and double the national average. The staying-on rates at school at 16 are 8 per cent. below the national average and the attainment at 16 of five or more GCSEs at grade A to C is 10 per cent. below.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) will testify, the problem is the same in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, across the former coalfield areas, where the teenage pregnancy rates are the highest in the Trent region, with the exception of the south Humber. The new health action zone in the South Yorkshire coalfield communities is therefore especially important. It will be a major way of co-ordinating efforts to tackle public health priorities. The health action zone has a specific objective to reduce the

number of unintended under-16 conceptions and reduce the number of young people risking their health through smoking, alcohol and sexual behaviour.
I think that the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay constituted a welcome to the social exclusion unit's report; I certainly welcome it. It identified three key factors that contribute to our internationally high rate of teenage pregnancy: low expectations about the future, which are the most important factor; ignorance about contraception and the reality of life as a parent, as the hon. Lady ably illustrated; and mixed messages from adults about sex and relationships.
I want to bring those three issues down to local level and talk about the Rawmarsh baby doll project, which exemplifies the difficulties and challenges that we face. The conception of the project—if I may use that term—dates back to the end of 1996 and stems from a concern among local youth workers and teachers who were finding a change in attitude among young girls—from expressing a rather vague desire to have a baby to declaring that they were actively trying to conceive—accompanied by a local rise in teenage pregnancies.
The project was created and co-ordinated by two youth workers, Ann Brown and Karen Kirby, based at the Rawmarsh youth centre, with funding of only £250. The aim is to improve the understanding of what it means to be a parent and change the attitude of 14 and 15-year-olds towards the prospect of parenthood. It involves a lifelike doll that is heavy to hold, is always hungry, cries to be changed and wakes up several times in the night. It involves planning and preparation lessons covering sexual health and relationships, the problems and embarrassments of having a baby, costs and budgeting, dressing, feeding, changing, bathing and putting down a baby and trying to get it to sleep. The course culminates in the student taking the baby doll home on a Friday evening and returning to school on a Monday morning having looked after it over the weekend.
The evaluation of the course showed some success, but it highlighted some of the difficult dimensions of the problem. It was clear from the start that many of the under 16-year-olds had up-to-date information about contraception and sexual health. However, 20 per cent. believed that having a baby would have no effect on a relationship, and 70 per cent. believed that it would improve a relationship. The lack of information was not to do with sex, but with practical parenting.
The average age of the sexual partners of these girls was 21 to 26, so they were not their class mates. The majority of those men were unemployed, often living independently in rented accommodation. Some were involved in drug misuse.
Seven out of 10 of the young male students that participated in this project thought that responsibility to rear a child was nothing to do with them, whereas all the girls involved in the project stipulated that it was a shared responsibility. The majority of the male pupils did not complete the exercises and tasks, and only one took the baby doll home over the weekend. The parents of his school mates made all sorts of excuses about why their son could not participate in the programme and could not take the baby doll home, ranging from "the family is going to a christening at the weekend" to "we are going on holiday in the near future" or "we have to go shopping


for new clothes." One father was abusive to a youth worker, and insisted that babies had nothing to do with his son.
The outcome of the pilot project was that half the 14 and 15-year-olds who took the baby doll home said that it had significantly increased the age at which they wanted to have children. The families by and large said that it was a useful exercise, and that all school pupils should undertake such a course.
This pilot was the first of its kind in South Yorkshire. It was replicated elsewhere in my constituency in Wath upon Dearne, and with health action zone funding the exercise it will now be extended right across Rotherham.
We need national targets and the political priority that the social exclusion report provides. We need to develop local services, such as those that the health action zone gives us the opportunity to deliver. But in the end, it is work with individual boys and girls while they are still at school that will make the most telling difference.
The social exclusion unit plan is a good start. I particularly welcome a special feature of the report. For the first time, it has an edge to it which is directed at boys and men. For once, young men are singled out as also having responsibility for teenage pregnancies. The blame and shame that too often is directed only at girls, is also turned on boys. When girls get pregnant, they give up education or give up their baby for adoption or to their grandparents to look after, whereas boys go up in the estimation of their mates down the pub.
The proposal for the Child Support Agency to pursue fathers of children born to teenagers is important, because it underlines the fact that they have a responsibility for their children, including a financial responsibility, and that these babies are their children.
I welcome the plans on educational advice, the emphasis on fathers, and the approach of the social exclusion unit working across Departments. However, the test will not be how well the social exclusion unit's own plans are put into practice, or how well Ministers link up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, but whether funding through mainstream programmes, such as health action zones, sure start, excellence in cities and the ONE service, make a major impact on information, advice and support for young people, and, above all, on the opportunities available to them.
It is important to dispel ignorance surrounding sex and to improve advice, information and support services, but success in education and improved life opportunities will in the long term be crucial in helping us to tackle this problem.

Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. I declare a minor interest having produced parenting education materials for use in schools, which have been successfully implemented and have had an impact on young people's lives. The local authority in my constituency is identified in the report as having the 29th highest rate of teenage pregnancies, so it is a local concern as well as a matter in which I have had a personal interest in the past.
As a member of the Government's personal, social and health education working group, I am delighted that this report has come out in conjunction with the report of that group so as to focus attention on the problem of teenage pregnancies in the broader context of mainstream changes to the school curriculum and the work of other organisations to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
Teenage pregnancy is not an easy issue for us to tackle, either as individual Members of Parliament or as a Government. People hold strongly held beliefs on this issue. Some people have deeply held religious beliefs, so we must tackle this subject with care. Young people and their parents have to make intimate decisions. However, the cost of doing nothing is high. The statistics in the report show that teenage mothers have poorer education opportunities, poorer jobs and often bring up their children living in relative poverty. Their babies have poorer health—there is a higher infant mortality rate among those babies—and that imposes wider costs on the community. Doing nothing is not an option. We must find solutions, however difficult they may be.
It is particularly interesting that the risk factors associated with high levels of teenage pregnancy identified in the report include poverty and education problems. The young people involved are not in education, employment or training; they live in areas of deprivation and are excluded from other sources of education or health service support. Those factors must be addressed. It is interesting that young people told the social exclusion team that there were three causes of becoming a teenage parent. The primary cause was that they felt that they had nothing to lose. They had low self-esteem and did not feel valued as individuals. They felt that they had no future and no hope, so they became pregnant as a way of feeling valued. They had something to which they could give unconditional love and which would give them unconditional love back. That is our failure. Why cannot we provide those young people with a sense of optimism, hope and self-esteem for the future, so that they do not make that difficult and probably wrong choice.
Those young people also described the cause of their pregnancy as ignorance. It is not good enough, as we approach the 21st century, for people to become pregnant through ignorance. Hon. Members have spoken about the mixed messages that young people receive. The media bombards them with messages that it is almost compulsory for young people to have sex, but they do not talk about it at home because it is too embarrassing and difficult. The result is not less sex, but less protected sex. The risk is not just of becoming pregnant, but of infection from sexually transmitted diseases.
Action must be taken to tackle the causal and risk factors associated with high levels of teenage pregnancy. The report is right to refer to two strands of activity. The first is prevention: we should try to prevent young people from becoming pregnant, but if they do and they have a baby, we should provide them with the support they need for their own development and for the care of their child.
The difficulty is that many teenagers do not know how easy it is to get pregnant or how hard it is to be a parent. Education in sex, relationships and parenthood is required from schools, youth services and other providers.
The report is right to say that that should start in primary school. I was at a broadcast of a Central Television programme called "Weekend Live" on Friday night that focused on teenage pregnancies. There was a 14-year-old mother with a two-year-old daughter. She had her baby when she was 12 and had become pregnant when she was 11. We have to start sex education at a younger age if we are to prevent very early pregnancies. The report clearly recommends that.
The report demonstrates statistically that effective sex education can reduce sexual activity among young people. I particularly like the idea of peer education. As the hon. Member for Billericay said, older young people talking to younger people about their experiences is an effective way of getting the message across at school or in community projects.
The report places particular emphasis on involving parents in school policy on sex education and trying to change the climate in which they talk to their children about the subject. The message given to boys should be strengthened. Page 97 of the report says:
Young men are half of the problem and the solution. Sex and relationships education in and out of school should bring them more into the picture. Young men also need to be targeted with information about the consequences of sex and fatherhood, including their financial responsibility to support their children.
However hard that educational process may be, it is up to our schools and our teachers to find ways to make it happen.
Most teenage parents go back to live with mum to be looked after with their baby. That works. I met a number of such families on Friday night and the mums of the teenage parents seem to enjoy having their daughter at home with the baby and being the grandmother who brings them up. That is fine when it works, but three out of 10 of the 15 and 16-year-olds do not have that option. We cannot simply abandon them. Too many teenage parents find themselves in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or in council flats on faraway estates with no family and no support. The Government's strategy of semi-independent supported accommodation with a mentor, advice on parenting skills and health education is the right way to provide the support that those young people need at the time when they are most vulnerable and do not have other people around them. It has been unfortunate to say the least that certain parts of the press have referred to those arrangements as hostels or some form of punitive measure. The aim is to support young parents. The National Council for One Parent Families, Gingerbread and others have been actively involved in pilot projects showing how the policy can be implemented and have supported that aspect of the report.
The target is to reduce teenage conceptions by 50 per cent. by 2010. That is an ambitious target, but it is right to set ambitious targets. The Government have pledged £60 million in the first few years. I congratulate the Government and the Ministers involved on taking the report seriously and putting money behind the work that needs to be done. I urge them to take the matter forward with as much speed as possible.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall not take more than a few moments to make my points, because these Adjournment debates are principally for

Back Benchers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on calling for the debate. We all knew that she would be straight-talking. I give her full credit for pointing to the family obligations. The new life created for the teenager concerned has around it a raft of adults who have responsibility for it.
Only the hardest of hearts would not have sympathy for the young teenage girl who finds herself in that predicament, but I urge the Minister to look closely at some of the statistical evidence in the report. The clear overall message is that Britain lags way behind other European countries, but the more worrying fact is that we are going against the trend. We have been going backwards during the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s while the situation has improved in other European countries.
There are other key points in the report that are worthy of closer examination. Why is the rate of teenage pregnancy 70 per cent. higher in Shropshire than it is in Cambridgeshire? There must be a reason for the statistical irregularities. I urge the Minister to look more deeply at the analysis.
We welcome the report, which identifies some of the causes of teenage pregnancy, but there are deeper layers of reasoning behind the rising incidence. We should face up to the mismatch between girls and boys. It is acceptable for lads to go out and sow their wild oats and the girls feel that they have to say yes. We must empower girls so that they feel comfortable to say no and we need to ensure that our young men play their part.
Without being overly party political, I must point out to the Minister that the messages that the Government send are important. Doing away with the married couples tax allowance and using the money to increase child benefit is tantamount to saying that it is okay to have babies, but it is not important to get married. The signals that we give to society are important.
Young people are bombarded with information about sex and reasons for having sex. It has been turned into a sport, decoupled from the emotions and responsibility that go with it. The situation is not helped by the way in which the subject is taught. Perhaps the British are particularly handicapped in this respect and find it too difficult to talk about. We have to address that. In many ways, the parents need to be taught about how to teach it. Many of us who are parents had dire experience of being taught about sex in schools, but that is the only experience that we had, and perhaps our parents did not do a very good job either. It is important not just to teach the youngsters, but to teach the parents how to talk about it.
I strongly endorse the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that young mums should be taken into classrooms. A young mum telling her classmates or those just a little younger than her about the constraints that have come upon her will give a strong message not to do it.
The issue is what we teach in school and how and when we do it. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talked about teaching at a young age. Several hon. Members have mentioned primary school children. There is a big difference in primary school ages. I have three children aged eight, six and four. They vary in their ability to understand anything about the subject. I counsel strongly against the suggestion that there should be across the board sex education for four-year-olds,


which simply reveals ignorance about the lives of very young children. There is a danger that they will try something out. We all know that young children have an unnerving ability to identify things that parents are awkward about.

Dr. Tonge: rose—

Mrs. Spelman: In view of the shortness of time, I ought to continue so that I leave enough time for the Minister.
We have discussed the weaknesses of sex education, but we are still left with large numbers of women who, after the health visitor's final visit, are left alone with the baby, isolated and afraid. Surely they still have parents. Members of the family should be encouraged to take more responsibility for young women in that situation.
In a spirit of constructive opposition I support the idea of hostels, but I urge the Minister to consider the mentoring available. An older, more experienced woman should be on hand to help the younger women. We should find ways of creating a surrogate family setting so that the young women have babysitting opportunities and chances to go out, complete their education and, if possible, get into work. Without that support, they can end up in a cycle that all too often spirals into deprivation.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We have had an extremely good debate and I join those who have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for initiating it. It gives us grounds for a fair degree of optimism and hope in respect of the extent to which the report of the social exclusion unit, with its intensely sensible and practical recommendations, has been broadly welcomed and the fact that the debate represents the progress that has been made from the rather pathetic hand wringing about moral decay that characterised so much of the debate about teenage pregnancy in the past.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Corby (Mr. Hope) set out clearly why we need to be concerned about teenage pregnancy rates in Britain. I would add only two points. First, 30 years ago the rate of teenage pregnancy in Britain was more or less in line with those in other European countries. However, while in other European countries the rates of teenage pregnancy have fallen, that is not the case here. Even parts of the country with the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy have a worse record than other European countries that we should aspire at least to match.
It is also clear that teenage pregnancy is far more prevalent among the poorest. That is why it is central to our range of strategies to tackle social exclusion. A young girl in social class 5 is 10 times more likely to become pregnant when she is little more than a child herself than a girl in social class 1. The other risk factors that reinforce the likelihood of teenage pregnancy include having been in care, having been excluded from school, having mental health problems and having experienced sexual abuse.
Teenagers who become parents, and their children, face additional health risks. The babies have a greater incidence of low birth weight and perinatal death and the mothers have a greatly increased risk of post-natal depression.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) made clear, there are three broad reasons for our current position. The first is ignorance. All too often, children learn about the mechanics of sex from school, but precious little else. That must change. Throughout the consultation on the report, young people said time and again that they did not want to learn only about the physical aspects of sex; they wanted to talk about feelings and know more about how to handle relationships and the emotional aspects of sex. They also need to know about the cost—the extent to which unprotected sex leads to pregnancy and, increasingly, to sexually transmitted diseases.
We have to listen to young people. Had we done so 10, 15 or 20 years ago, many of the issues that we are addressing today would not include an unacceptable rate of teenage pregnancy and the social exclusion associated with it.
The costs of ignorance are great. One reason for the high rate of teenage pregnancy is that Britain has the lowest contraceptive use of any of our neighbouring European countries. The rates of sexually transmitted infection among teenagers are rising fast.
Three in four teenage pregnancies are unplanned. That is why we shall build on the work with Sexwise and NHS Direct to provide a nationally available advice line for teenagers to give advice and counselling and to signpost them quickly to other services that can provide help. We will also be funding a national publicity campaign that will address directly the issues, questions and concerns that young people have. It will also get the messages across to parents.
We have to make it clear that advice and help is available. One of the clear deterrents to young people in respect of seeking advice about contraception is that some 60 per cent. of them are not aware that confidential advice is available.
The second reason for the problem is low expectation. The great challenge to our programme of action is to provide reasons for young girls not to become pregnant—to convince them that life holds more for them than having a baby at 14, 15 or 16.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the third reason—mixed messages. We live in a society where children are bombarded with images of sex, which is used to sell them everything from ice-cream to videos. The message is clear: being sexually active is the norm—come and join the club. Yet the rest of adult society gives a quite different message about sex. Either we do not discuss it at all or—as the report graphically testifies—we discuss it in an embarrassed and diffident way. We hope that if we do not talk to teenagers about sex it will not happen, but we have to accept that all the evidence is stacked against that view.
No young person got pregnant from knowing about sex. Equipping our young people with information about sex, relationships, access to contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted disease is the best way to put them in charge of the decisions that they are often forced into making. We have to be realistic. As hon. Members have said, we have to see the world as it is, not as we might want it to be.
The plan for action is clear. It begins with a new blueprint for sex and relationships education for young people in and out of school. It addresses the fact that such


education needs to start in primary schools and must be set in context. Sex and relationships education must include negotiating relationships, knowing how to say no, equipping children with information about puberty and how babies are conceived and born, recognising that something like 10 per cent. of girls start their periods while they are still at primary school. It sees parents as the first and principal teachers, who must be better equipped to talk to their children about sex. In secondary school, it ensures that advice about access to contraception is properly available.
The risks of unprotected sex are high. Only about 50 per cent. of teenagers use contraception the first time that they have sex. We are taking forward work on that. The sexual health strategy will play a critical role in reducing teenage pregnancy and improving understanding about teenage sexual health.
Improving access to emergency contraception is important, but young people need not be exposed to the risks that they would face if at the age of 13 or 14 they were able to use emergency contraception as an alternative to proper protection, advice and support.
I end on a word of caution. It is all too easy to stigmatise teenage parents, to point the finger and blame them for the ills of society. I finish with the words of one young woman who contributed to the consultation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Stoke-on-Trent

Ms Joan Walley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise issues of real importance to my constituency, and particularly to the city of Stoke-on-Trent and to north Staffordshire. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), is here to address what are important issues to the people whom we represent.
I welcome what the Government are doing to tackle economic decline in those parts of our industrial heartlands where manufacturing industry has taken a hammering. I am aware that there are difficulties, but initiatives are taking place. There is a huge commitment across the local community to make a difference. We must make sure that we have joined-up thinking across Government, and that must come from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which must work with other Departments and agencies to get the changes that we need.
In this respect, I congratulate the Government—particularly the Deputy Prime Minister—on the report "Making the Difference—A New Start for England's Coalfield Communities". I represent an area that was once the north Staffordshire coalfield and which has never properly recovered from the job losses in the coal industry. Traditionally, our area has relied on pits, the pottery and ceramic industry and—to a slightly lesser extent—the textile industry.
The report on coalfield regeneration is thorough, and I welcome it. It has resulted in extra funding, which will be vital. I am slightly disappointed that no one from north Staffordshire will be represented on the trust that has been set up to administer some of the funding. However, I want the Minister to be sure that we have claims on the trust. Also, we want to work closely with it so that all the recommendations in the report can be brought to bear to make a real difference to our area. I know that the Minister understands these arguments as he, too, represents an area that once depended on coal.
I could refer at length to figures and statistics which demonstrate that if ever an area needed extra help, it is ours. That is the case whether we are talking about exclusion from schools, teenage pregnancies or the numbers of people who, because of industrial injury, are out of work. However, I do not wish to quote the figures. I want to get across a positive message from Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. We are upbeat about what we can do to meet the needs. All we want is a little extra support, recognition and understanding from the Government, so that we can all work together in one big partnership.
I wish to concentrate initially on round 5—the final bid for single regeneration budget funding, which was made by Advantage West Midlands on 30 April. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give an answer today on this most important proposal, but I am mindful that, in the next few days and weeks, he and his colleagues will be considering the bid. I want to make sure that he is aware of its merits and of the enormous difference that it could make.
The bid talks about partnership, and it has an impressive list of partners, including the north Staffordshire chamber of trade. At virtually every meeting


that I and local Members have attended with the chamber of trade, the one thing that has been emphasised is that if we are to do something about all the needs of our area, we must start with education. All the partners that have signed up to the proposal—including the health authority, the voluntary sector, industry and the local churches—agree with our Prime Minister: education is the best economic policy that we have. That is why the SRB bid is so committed to education. We are asking for an opportunity to promote regeneration through education—that is the message that I want to convey today.
There can be no more important way of tackling the problems than education and training. If we do not start to put right the previous Government's legacy of underfunding education—not only in Stoke-on-Trent, but in Staffordshire as a whole—we will not realise the potential of the young people in our area.
It is for that reason that I believe that the bid is vital and timely. We want to work with a partnership of universities, colleges, schools, the voluntary sector, local training and enterprise councils, the careers service, health authorities, the private sector, the probation service and unions in the common cause of tackling our educational problems.
Stoke-on-Trent, in common with many older industrial areas, has had a culture in which—perhaps wrongly—education and training were not considered important. Young people have had low educational and vocational aspirations, but much has been done to combat that. We have had the "aiming high" initiative, which has been introduced in close collaboration with many local schools in our area. Through that initiative, we have now understood that the root cause of some of the problems of low business formation and the little capacity that there has been for community-led regeneration goes back to under-investment in education.
It is for that reason that the partnership is committed to increasing staying-on rates in schools, and to bringing the level of 16-year-olds staying on in school to nearer the national level. I congratulate the Government on the educational maintenance awards, which I am determined will make a real difference to our staying-on rate.
The partnership is committed to reducing unemployment by improving access to training and the relevant skill levels for young people, and to improving the participation by young people in the life of the community—for example, by youth parliaments and forums. I was privileged to attend a national award in the House last week involving the Citizenship Foundation, which is keen to work with us in north Staffordshire. The partnership is committed to increasing the numbers of new businesses established by young people.
We have large numbers of young school-leavers who are not settled and are at risk. We want to change attitudes towards education and learning. We want to increase youth participation and decision-making, and we want to deal with underachievers and make sure that the regeneration that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is doing so much to bring about is based on and rooted in education.
I must refer to the excellence in cities scheme. The Minister may wonder why I am concentrating on education in a debate to be answered by an Environment

Minister. However, he will understand that we must put in place new mechanisms across all Departments. In view of the role that the SRB bid is giving to education, perhaps we need to look at how Departments can work together. We may need a longer time frame for some of the regeneration policies, and we should consider whether the greater prominence for education in the SRB is helpful. If it is to bring about changes locally, we need to ensure that we have expertise in that subject within the regional development agencies. My hon. Friend's Department has a key role to play in bringing together all the players at a national level to achieve that.
I wish to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to difficulties that could be paralleled at ministerial level if we do not address the issues. For example, we must ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who has responsibility for inner-city education schemes, has some input into the work of the RDAs and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We are trying to get many initiatives, such as sure start, started in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. We do not want those schemes watered down, but we do want clear cohesion to obtain the maximum benefit.
It is important that the Minister understand the support across north Staffordshire for the bid for objective 2 eligibility, because we want north Staffordshire to feature in that. I pay tribute to Mike Tappin, former Member of the European Parliament, for doing so much preliminary work. It is a great loss to us that he is no longer an MEP and I wish to put on record my thanks for the work that he has done.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of our support for assisted area status, although I know that other Departments are involved. When the urban task force report is released, and if it contains a challenge for city centre regeneration pilots, I request that adequate time and funding be allowed for all cities to take part.
I am aware of the tremendous work that my hon. Friend the Minister has done in respect of British waterways and canals, which offer enormous opportunities for regeneration. In Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, we have the Trent and Mersey canal and the Caldon canal, which provide those opportunities. We should like those issues to feature centrally in further funding that we shall request from the Government. We want the Minister to know how much we want to form partnerships with him to work on that issue.
We also have enormous opportunities for regeneration through heritage. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the most monumental site in my constituency—the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery—which was used by English Heritage on 8 June to launch the national buildings at risk register. Chatterley Whitfield is the nation's No. 1 most at risk building. It offers prospects for job creation and sustainable urban regeneration, so that what was once a powerhouse of the past can become a powerhouse of the future to benefit Stoke-on-Trent and the wider north Staffordshire area.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who is in her place, is fully aware of the opportunities for our constituencies that such regeneration would provide. We need a commitment from the Government, Advantage West Midlands and the regional development agency to


work closely with English Heritage, in view of the priority that it has given to getting Chatterley Whitfield working again—with new jobs—for the benefit of local people whose lives have been blighted by the closure of the colliery.
No debate on regeneration in Stoke-on-Trent would be complete without a reference to the pottery and ceramic industry. As I walk through the House of Commons, I am always mindful of the tiles and tableware we use which were manufactured in my constituency and neighbouring ones. The industry is experiencing problems at the moment, like most manufacturing industry, but we are grateful for the SRB money that has already helped to revitalise some of our industry.
We are also grateful to the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry for combining with a partnership of local companies and civic leaders in a report known as the ECOTEC report. It contains a list of recommendations which, if achieved, would reverse the decline in our industry. We want to use the report to improve management training and skill levels in the ceramics industry, to establish mentoring schemes to spread good practice, and to develop a "Made in Stoke-on-Trent" label to be promoted throughout the world, because we have a worldwide industry.
Promoting diversity of industry in our area comes back to education. We must do something about educational achievement. I hope that we will obtain increased educational funding in the future, but in the meantime we place a great deal of hope in the SRB bid. If we can convince the Government of the merits of our proposal, we can start to work in real partnership for improved economic prosperity and educational achievement across the area that we represent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale):: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this debate. She is a worthy warrior for Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire area. I have known her all the time that I have been in the House, and she never misses an opportunity to raise issues of concern to, or to campaign on behalf of, the area.
On a lighter note, I wish to commiserate with my hon. Friend because Port Vale, a football league club, lost their assistant manager a few days ago. He has now been appointed manager of Mansfield Town, and I hope that he will bring all the skills of the north Staffordshire area to the east midlands area.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues relating to regional policies and regeneration in the Stoke area. As she rightly pointed out, Stoke does face a range of difficulties, and no one with any sense would seek to deny that. For instance, as she said, the Stoke-on-Trent economy is highly dependent upon the ceramics industry, which accounts for one in six jobs there. That industry has been declining in employment terms and there has been a corresponding fall in employment in other supporting firms, and also in the mine and steel industries. Growth in service sector employment has not been as rapid as in other parts of the region.
The Government recognise that there are areas of deprivation in the city, which is why it is in receipt of considerable levels of Government regeneration funding.

We also recognise that there are links between such deprivation and social exclusion, and we are developing a range of new policies in this area that are likely to benefit the city now and in the future.
The Government wish to contribute to making Stoke-on-Trent more prosperous and an even better place to live and work. To that end, we are working with local partners and regional agencies to implement a wide range of new initiatives and programmes, some of which I will refer to today.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the single regeneration budget. Stoke-on-Trent is benefiting from three major SRB schemes, totalling £52 million in direct Government grant. Those schemes are the Corbridge community renewal, the villages initiative and the Stoke approach. By levering in an additional £142 million of other funding from both the public and private sectors, the schemes have attracted a total of £194 million to the rebuilding of the Stoke-on-Trent economy.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Stoke-on-Trent has also submitted a bid under the current SRB round 5, entitled "Realising the Potential of Young People". Decisions are currently being taken on SRB round 5, and a national announcement of the successful bids will be made in early July. As I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on Stoke's bid at this stage of the proceedings, but I wish the city well in its application.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about the assisted areas review. The Government are considering the proposals that they will make to the European Commission for new assisted areas in this country. Final decisions are expected in the coming weeks. The needs of all areas are being carefully considered under the review, including those of Stoke-on-Trent and other parts of the west Midlands.
The Government's aim is to designate assisted areas where financial assistance to industry will be effective in addressing need. We are seeking to combine areas of need with opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration.
My hon. Friend asked about the relationship between the assisted areas review and the structural funds review. The Government are also currently considering the proposals that they will make for European structural funds objective 2 areas. The two maps have different policy objectives. They should not have to be identical, nor should one be expected to be contained within the other. Taken together, however, they should offer a coherent approach to regional development.
Better educational attainment is a key element in Stoke's future success. The city has applied to the Department for Education and Employment to set up the rainbow zone, which aims to address the poor levels of educational achievement in the Stoke-on-Trent area. It will cost £3 million over three years, and the partners in the scheme aim to raise a quarter of the £1 million needed each year. The zone could start in January 2000, subject to approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Stoke has also been selected as one of 15 pilot areas under the education maintenance allowance scheme to test incentives for young people to continue in full-time learning after the age of 16. Under the Government's new


sure start scheme, partners in Stoke-on-Trent have submitted a proposal to address family support in north Stoke, which will start later this year.

Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that those considering a sure start application should take into account the fact that more than one area is involved? If the scheme is suited to those different areas, we will be able to trail blaze right across the city.

Mr. Meale: There is no doubt about that. The Government recognised the diversity of the area in the recent coalfield task force, and want to encourage economic regeneration of all the coalfield areas. The coalfield initiative has been implemented by several Departments, but we must remember the local importance of the ceramics industry, to which my hon. Friend referred, and of the steel industry. All local industries deserve the help offered to young people by the sure start educational support scheme.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the excellence in cities programme. As the programme develops—depending, of course, on the availability of resources—we will be looking to involve further areas in the initiative. Some elements of the programme—for example, the expansion of beacon schools and specialist schools—already apply beyond the initial six pilot areas. The Government are therefore pleased that Stoke-on-Trent is taking advantage of so many of our new initiatives to support education. Improving the skill levels of young people is vital to the well-being of the city and the region.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the problems of the ceramics industry in Stoke, which has suffered several major redundancies in the past 12 months. The Government appreciate that this is a difficult time in the industry, and we will continue to help to alleviate the effects on people made redundant from ceramics companies in north Staffordshire. The Department for Education and Employment's rapid response fund is already helping many redundant workers with traditional pottery skills to retrain in order to seek jobs in alternative industries. It will continue to do so throughout 1999.
There remain problems in the industry due to increasing foreign competition and other factors. The industry clearly needs to compete in the marketplace, and the Government will do what they can to help it modernise. We will also help Stoke to diversify its economy through relevant programmes, including European assistance.

Ms Walley: My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of supporting the ceramics industry, and of helping people who have lost the jobs that they had in it. Does he agree

that it is also important to work closely with firms currently in difficulty and that we should help them modernise before they are forced into receivership? Should we not do more to prevent problems arising in the first place, and should not policies on competitiveness pay more attention to that?

Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to help the ceramics industry and other traditional industries to diversify and modernise. As I said earlier, we will do everything to help in that process.
European funding has been very important in Stoke's regeneration as a modern city. Stoke has been awarded some £14 million in grant from the 1994–96 objective 2 programme, and £3 million from the 1997–99 programme. A further £3 million has been offered for the final phase of Trentham lakes, a flagship regeneration project on a key gateway site that involves a joint public-private partnership to produce new job opportunities. In total, European assistance so far has led to 344 jobs being created and has encouraged £175 million of private sector investment in the area.
Stoke has also suffered from colliery closures in recent years. I have some knowledge of that problem, as I come from a strong coal mining community. My hon. Friend referred to her interest in the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery site, which represents a major regeneration opportunity for the city. I appreciate that the site has particular significance for the local former mining communities and the wider population of Stoke-on-Trent. Although I have not yet visited the Chatterley Whitfield site, I promise that I shall arrange a visit as soon as possible to examine regeneration matters and to talk to local people about the regeneration of the canal network in the Stoke-on-Trent area.
The Chatterley Whitfield site is designated as a scheduled ancient monument. It has been identified by English Heritage as a grade A building at risk, with national and international significance in terms of industrial heritage. Following a number of unsuccessful initiatives, English Heritage has been working recently with my hon. Friend and the city council to find a viable use for the site.
On 8 June, English Heritage announced funding support of £1 million to kick-start regeneration proposals over the next three years. The first stage is in hand, and the aim is to produce a clear set of proposals and a business plan by the end of 1999. I know of the problem with land ownership, but I promise my hon. Friend that the Government will do all we can to try to resolve that difficulty so that we can proceed.
In conclusion, I can tell my hon. Friend—my friend of many years—that my Department and others will do everything possible to help regenerate the economy in Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire area and to find work and education opportunities for local people.

Rural Policing

1 pm

Mr. David Prior: I am delighted to debate rural policing as it is one of the most important issues facing North Norfolk and the constituencies of many other hon. Members.
We cherish many freedoms and take them for granted. None is more important, however, than the freedom to go about one's daily life in safety, without fear or intimidation. That principle lies behind the great cry of the founders of the American constitution for life, liberty and the pursuit of human happiness. The rule of law, and its acceptance by the people even when individuals may disagree with it, is a crucial hallmark of a civilised democratic society.
The line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour will always fluctuate. It is influenced by many factors, not least the prevailing moral consensus and the political complexion of the House of Commons. All politicians who, like me, believe in individual freedom must deal with the paradox that liberty is both constrained and preserved by law and order policies. However, no matter what our political beliefs, and wherever the line is drawn, all Members believe that people should not feel threatened by crime.
I shall not dwell on serious crimes such as dealing in hard drugs, murder or burglary; nor do I wish to trade statistics with the Minister of State, Home Office, about how much his Government have or have not spent on law and order, although I shall refer to their election promise to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
Instead, I shall focus on a range of anti-social behaviour largely undealt with by the criminal justice system, but which can blight or ruin the lives of ordinary, decent people. That is as true in the countryside and our market towns as it is in our big cities. I shall illustrate my theme with a few real-life examples from my constituency. The Minister will recognise their type, and I do not doubt that he could add to the list.
A young man walks down the high street, spitting on the pavement or, worse, spitting into a young mother's pram, in which a baby is lying. A car driver deliberately throws a bag of takeaway rubbish out of his car window on to the street. A gang of children, in their early teens, defaces and vandalises newly planted trees. A group of 13 to 17-year-olds skateboard in a residential area, shouting obscenities and playing their radios loudly late into the night. Rowdy young adults drink too much, show off outside a pub and jostle and insult passers by, making old people in particular frightened to walk down the high street.
I could offer many more examples, but the House will have the gist. Across the country, many Members will hear the same complaints at their constituency surgeries. That kind of behaviour makes no headlines, and it is entirely absent from the crime statistics or the police league tables. Many young people involved are not real criminals. Most, though not all, will grow out of their anti-social behaviour and will settle down. However, their behaviour causes great distress to many decent people.
Some of those involved will fall into crime, perhaps stealing a car or dealing in drugs. They may become drunk and get into a violent incident. If bad behaviour is

not checked, it can easily progress into serious criminal behaviour. We do not have time to go into all the reasons for anti-social behaviour, which is linked to family breakdown, poor employment opportunities and fewer organised leisure opportunities—a particular concern in my constituency where youth and community centres have closed. Those long-term problems are the causes of crime on which the Government promised to be tough, but on which they are finding it difficult to deliver.
My constituents want to know what the Government will do today and in the short term. I was brought up in rural Suffolk in the 1960s and 1970s. I remember the police house in the village; I remember the local policeman; I even remember "Dixon of Dock Green", though admittedly through a haze of nostalgia. The bobby on the beat was a reality. He may not have caught train robbers and murderers, but his existence prevented crime. He was part of the community. He knew the local villains and the parents of local troublemakers. Above all, he reassured the public. Visibility is important.
My view is not fashionable, and it can be easily parodied. Senior police officers and Home Office officials will no doubt say that police officers on foot or on bikes cannot catch modern criminals. That view misses the point because it is driven by crime statistics and league tables, clear-up rates and speed of response tables. It misses the much more intangible goal of a friendly, crime-free, happy neighbourhood.
If the police become too remote, they will increasingly be seen in a hostile light. To law-abiding citizens, a uniform should inspire familiarity and security, not fear and trepidation. Only if the local police are truly local will officers be able further to develop our important neighbourhood watch schemes and partnership approaches, which involve volunteers, parish councils, local authorities and—I hope—parents.
A local policeman who knows the community must be at the hub of any partnership approach, bringing professionalism, experience, judgment and authority. The police are custodians of a special bond of trust between the people and the law. Weakening or ignoring that bond does not bode well for anyone.
Against that background, I am concerned about staffing in North Norfolk. I am sure that other rural areas face a similar problem. North Norfolk has 1,325 miles of lanes and roads, 52,000 homes and a population that grows from 130,000 to around 1 million during the holiday season. It takes at least an hour to drive from one end of the constituency to another, and there are eight large market towns. Sandringham is at one end of the constituency, and Bacton—the largest gas terminal in the country—is at the other. Each poses particular challenges to the police.
Yesterday, 15 constables, two sergeants and one inspector were on duty. That simply is not enough. There is no hope for genuine community policing unless more officers can be on duty. This year's police settlement holds out no hope for improvement. Norfolk has been given no real spending increase, but policing costs are rising. As Brian Landale, chairman of the police authority, wrote earlier this year to the Home Secretary:
The funding increase for the Norfolk Police Authority is very disappointing and falls short of the increase required to maintain even a standstill position … Crime in Norfolk may have to be fought on a Shoe String.


The Police Federation said of the more general 1999–2000 settlement:
One of the Government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order but Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in frontline services.
The situation may worsen as police authorities are shoe-horned into what is euphemistically called best value, which is designed to improve efficiency. How can we put a value on local community policing? How can the visiting of schools to talk about drugs be turned into an efficiency measure? How can we effectively measure crimes that never happen? It seems that we are all accountants now, and I am concerned that best value will make it even more difficult to justify more policemen in the community and on the beat.
I hope that the Minister will take some of my points on board. I know that he does not have a magic wand, and that he has to grapple with extremely difficult issues—many of which existed long before he came into government. However, I hope that he accepts that bad and anti-social behaviour is a real problem, that local policing can help to prevent such behaviour, and that we need more and visible policemen on the beat in rural areas. I hope that he will find the resources to fund those policemen, and that he will stress to police authorities the importance of community policing and partnerships.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) for giving the House the opportunity to examine the issue of the policing of rural areas. The House would do well to take that matter seriously. My postbag shows that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about crime and disorder in rural areas. The Government are determined to put in place, as we have begun to do—not least with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is an important innovation—measures to give local communities the opportunity to enter into effective partnerships with the police to bear down on crime and disorder. We are determined to ensure that those issues are treated with the seriousness that they deserve.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's determination to avoid the simple trading of statistics in considering the matter, but the Audit Commission's latest figures show that crime in Norfolk is significantly below the national average of 78 crimes for every thousand people, at about 67 crimes per thousand of the population. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman says, the sense of well-being, safety and security of our fellow citizens is not reflected in a simple examination of the bare statistics; it is much more intangible than that. It is affected by behaviour and conduct that does not necessarily show up in those statistics.
The examples that the hon. Gentleman gives will be familiar to people in rural and urban areas. He describes what I call corrosive conduct, because it is corrosive of the fabric of local communities. It is precisely because the Labour Government recognised that, that we introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and tackled, for the first time, the sort of conduct of which he complained.

The courts now have the power to impose anti-social behaviour orders with an ultimate criminal sanction, but initially with a civil burden of proof.
The child curfew orders and the child safety orders are designed to assist in dealing with the unacceptable conduct of children, of young people, or even of older members of the public who should know better, but who act in a way that is fundamentally unacceptable to decent, law-abiding people. As I said, such conduct is corrosive of strong, successful local communities. We have now given the police, local authorities and the courts the power to deal with that sort of behaviour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that, in Norfolk, his local authority and the police do use those powers. I hope that he will ask the sort of questions that should be asked, if the conduct that he has described goes unchecked.
The hon. Gentleman also raises—significantly—issues relating to police numbers. I understand his concern to ensure that policing in his constituency and in the county is effective and efficient. I understand that and I welcome it. The hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to point out that we are discussing problems that existed before the Government came into office. However, I have to point out to him that the Conservative Government had 18 years in which to tackle them; they did not do so, and it is the Labour Government who have had to take up the cudgels on behalf of the very people whose concerns the hon. Gentleman represents in today's debate.
I hope that he will realise that, in calling for an effective and efficient police force, he certainly enjoys the support of the Government. We have ensured that, in respect of Norfolk, the budget of the police authority will increase by 5.5 per cent. this year to £86.9 million. That is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. I also point out that the budget for the years between 1992 and 1999 was set by right hon. and hon. Members who now sit—rightly—on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take up issues relating to police funding with his colleagues, who were responsible for that budget, and with his colleagues in Norfolk, who are responsible locally. The ball is very much in their court; we have increased the resources available to the police. During the next three years, we shall add an extra £1.24 billion to the police budget, over and above the moneys that would have been spent if the Conservatives had been returned to power and had implemented their budget projections.
Despite the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses, it is important to realise that Norfolk spends considerably more than its two immediate police force neighbours, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. I make those comments to the hon. Gentleman not in a spirit of party political acrimony, but in order to urge him to reflect on those issues with the chair of the police authority and with the chief constable. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, I am only too happy to meet them to discuss their concerns about police funding, but it is most important to understand the basis on which that dialogue can take place.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns about visible policing. I stress that those matters are primarily for the chief constable and I hope that he has raised them with the chief constable. It is not for me as a Minister—or for any Minister of the Crown, or for any right hon. or hon. Member, be they in government or in opposition—to tell chief police officers how to do their job


operationally. For good constitutional reasons, chief officers rightly have operational control over their forces; they determine the deployment of the manpower at their disposal.
In the discussions that I have held with chief constables, their concern is to build and to use the tools that the Labour Government have given them in order to mobilise the whole community in opposition to crime and disorder. We must avoid slipping into the mindset that it is all down to the police, and in which we say, "If only we saw more of our policemen and women." In the main, our policemen and women do a first-class job; they are there when we need them. I know the chief constable of Norfolk and am aware of how seriously he takes those issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he has specific concerns about deployment, he should, in the first instance, discuss them with the chief constable, especially in relation to manpower.
We should bear in mind what the previous Government did in relation to manpower. I remind the hon. Gentleman—I repeat, not in a spirit of party political acrimony—that his right hon. and hon. Friends took from the then Home Secretary the power to determine police force numbers. The Home Office had that power, but it was taken by a Conservative Home Secretary and a Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported—although he did not grace the Benches of this place—and for whom he went about on the stump in Norfolk garnering support. His reward was a majority of some 1,233 votes—I believe that that is the extent of it. The hon. Gentleman must understand the way in which we approach those issues. We hear what he says, but deployment of the not inconsiderable manpower resources at the disposal of the chief constable in Norfolk is, first and foremost, a matter for him.
We need to confront some real issues together. We must recognise that, while rural areas overall enjoy a lower rate of crime than urban areas per head of population, they experience the same concerns about burglary, robbery and anti-social behaviour. People in rural areas need to feel that they can go about their business—as the hon. Gentleman described—without fear. That is the right of people in both rural and urban England. Meeting those needs will require different and distinct strategies. We must ensure—I am absolutely determined to do this—that we deliver the crime and disorder strategies and outcomes that are now in place and are being taken forward. We must evaluate those outcomes, bearing in mind the special needs of rural areas.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office is addressing the issue of sparsity. We are awaiting the outcome of research into that area because sparsity is a real cause of concern operationally for rural chief officers and their management. Other issues involve the role of the rural equivalent of neighbourhood watch. Some very good schemes have been established in the countryside that target the theft of agricultural machinery, for instance. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a real problem in rural areas. He will also be aware of concerns in some rural areas about the modern equivalent of stock rustling. There is a real job of work to be done in mobilising the whole community with regard to appropriate property watch schemes. We must all take responsibility for each other and for each other's property.
We must also ensure that the Government's crime and disorder reduction programmes and our investment in that area benefit rural areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman of our determination in that regard. For example, good practice has been developed in terms of the relationship between police and schools. There are opportunities to fund some piloted work to ensure that schools work closely with local police, and significantly with local businesses, in order to bear down on some forms of crime and anti-social behaviour in which young people are involved. For instance, the problems of alcohol and drug abuse by young people will benefit from the partnership approach that the Government are seeking to engender.
The emphasis is on partnership and on evidence-based practice. We must ensure that the whole country—rural and urban areas alike—benefits from what the Government are seeking to achieve. I know that Norfolk will play its part. It has identified its priorities. The chief constable plans to make efficiency gains of £1.7 million this year and to re-invest those gains in a variety of initiatives designed to improve performance in priority areas. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear—bearing in mind the examples that he gave—that the chief constable is particularly concerned about reducing incidents of disorder by some 7 per cent. It is important to build on the strategies that we have put in place locally as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act. We must set targets and ensure that they are owned by the local communities who set them. That is why I particularly welcome the Norfolk chief constable's target for reducing disorder. We must work together to achieve those targets.
We have put in place the mechanism for delivering that result. We have invested an additional £150 million in more closed-circuit television schemes that will benefit both urban and rural areas. We are in the business of ensuring that our approaches are innovative. I shall give one example. I visited Ipswich a few months ago where I met men and women who have a special constabulary post in the local hospital trust grounds. They are trying to link the work of that post not simply with the CCTV provision within the hospital—which has drastically reduced the number of assaults on staff by patients and their families and other incidents of crime in the hospital—but with the wider community. Some interesting and important examples of good practice are being developed in rural areas, and they should be extended nationally.
The targeted policing initiative in our crime reduction programme will include vehicle crime—which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. The initiative will cover 1,000 square miles in a rural part of Northumbria, encompassing the towns of Hexham, Haltwhistle, Prudhoe and Corbybridge. The Government are making that sort of initiative possible. A mobile police station will tour the county, tracking, and dealing with crime as it is reported. Those measures offer the prospect of delivering visible policing in new, innovative and efficient ways that I know will gladden the hon. Gentleman's heart.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. It has been a good discussion and his contribution has proved helpful and useful. Through partnership—we want to see partnership in the House mirrored on the ground—we can make a real difference in reducing crime and disorder in rural and urban areas alike.

North Kent

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to present the case for assisted area status for north Kent—the conurbations of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway towns, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey, which are the Kent component of the Thames gateway initiative. I am pleased to be joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friends who represent those areas and I know that a couple of them hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite limited time being available.
The attendance of my hon. Friends encapsulates the collaborative spirit and practical commonsense partnerships which are the hallmark of our approach in north Kent and, indeed, one of the many strengths of our case. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for receiving our delegation to discuss the issue. I regret that I was not present to take part, but colleagues in the House and from our representative councils were pleased to present our case. They were pleased to do so because we are confident that north Kent has a powerful case, as a single entity and as individual areas. I shall give a general overview of why north Kent has a good case, but most of my examples will be from my own patch of Medway.
I make it clear from the outset that we will not be presenting a desperate doom and gloom picture. Paradoxically, council areas are at pains to promote themselves and attract inward investment, but my experience is that, when they are looking for Government or European funding, they all too often think that the worse the picture they present of themselves, the better their chance of success. It is almost as if they have employed the grim reaper as their spin doctor.
There is need in north Kent and there is deprivation, but there is opportunity as well and we have a proud record of success. That success, however, is yet to be fully realised and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to unlock the potential. If he does so, he will have to stand back because there will be an explosion of prosperity and investment, which will have regional, national and international benefits for our country's economy.
Let us look at need. North Kent is characterised by traditional industries—heavy industries that have been in decline. For a long time, particularly during the two recessions under the Tory Government, we suffered greatly, and nowhere more so than in my own patch. In 1984, the closure of the royal dockyard in Chatham wiped out 3,000 jobs in a day. The dockyard had served the Royal Navy for hundreds of years.
It is estimated that about 20,000 jobs were lost overall during those dark days in Medway. Unemployment rose to nearly 20 per cent., which is not the situation that people associate with the garden of England. Those levels of unemployment existed throughout north Kent during the 1980s and early 1990s, and people who took the advice that they should get on their bikes and find employment would not have stopped too long in north Kent.
Prosperity has returned to north Kent, although concentrated pockets of deprivation remain throughout the area and 61 wards, some of which have unemployment rates as high as 9 per cent., form an important focus for our bid. Those wards, whose gross domestic product and

GDP growth are well below average, represent 335,000 people. However, there are opportunities waiting to happen throughout the north Kent area. We have an excellent track record of making assistance and Government grants work.
Swale, for example, has regenerated £40 million of investment from the £4 million that it has been given in grants from its current intermediate assisted area status, which it achieved in 1993. In Medway, the City estate had enterprise status until a few years ago and 4,000 people work on the site, which is nearly full. The same is the case at Gillingham business park, where there are 2,000 jobs. There are 2,000 high-skill, high-tech jobs at Chatham Maritime, the site of the former dockyard. Such firms are relocating to our area.
We have a proud record of assisting small firms, and the local partners for growth initiative in Medway is giving grants and loans and working with banks and business leaders. That has saved or created 1,000 jobs. The Hopewell business centre, which is providing support for new small businesses, has been a huge success since it was opened a few years ago by the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister.
Despite that achievement, nearly 50 per cent. of the population in Medway travel out of the area to work, and the figure is 43 per cent. across north Kent. Providing employment opportunities locally would alleviate some of the congestion, particularly in Kent and on the main transport links to London, and promote the type of sustainable development that we all want.
The economic structure of north Kent, particularly that of Swale, remains fragile. Without question, there is a case for a second Swale crossing, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) has worked so hard. We all salute him for his tireless efforts and await with anticipation the outcome of the public inquiry, which starts in September.
Public-private partnerships are well established. North Kent Success, which is a highly regarded, private-sector-led body, has been instrumental in forging the sort of practical, commonsense partnerships to which I have referred. Such examples should give my hon. Friend the Minister confidence that we will deliver—assisted area status for north Kent would be a sound investment for the Government and the country.
There is massive development potential for 50,000 jobs in Dartford and Gravesham and 10,000 jobs on the Isle of Grain, which is the largest brown-field site in the south-east of England. Within the Isle of Grain there is a deep-water port and a railhead. Adjacent to it is Thames port, the third largest container port in the United Kingdom. However, I emphasise that assisted area status is required so that we can tap into that potential and properly realise it, encourage development and enable such sites, and many others throughout the area, to become far more attractive to investors.
We have to unlock that potential, and we are doing much of the work ourselves, but we need Government assistance if the Thames gateway is to achieve its objective to relieve west London from development and be the engine of growth for the south-east. There is deprivation in north Kent, and many parts of the economy remain fragile, but we have the skills and determination to exploit our assets. Jobs and wealth can be delivered, because our track record is second to none. Choose


north Kent, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, because, without doubt, that will be one of the finest decisions he takes as a Minister.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and congratulate him on winning the chance to initiate this brief debate. We should reflect on the necklace of poverty in the north and east Kent area. Although it has been greatly helped by assisted area status, we need a bit more help to tip us into success for ever.
Five years ago, the Shell research centre—that global company's centre of excellence—upped and went, leaving my constituency and the community. An immaculate 200 acre site, complete with Olympic swimming pools, lay empty, but it is now nearly full. Dencora, a wonderful company from Beccles in Suffolk, has taken it over and made it into a thriving science and venture capital area. We can achieve such things.
As a newcomer to north Kent and to the House, I find that there is a lack of confidence in my area about winning things. The people have been bashed for 30 years and they are used to getting nothing, being on the dole and having to fight for a living. Things are turning for the better, and Sittingbourne is going well, but there are problems in the Isle of Sheppey, which is on the edge of the gateway and contains Sheerness, our fifth-largest port. I hope that we get our bridge—the public inquiry starts on 7 September—because the wards of Sheerness, west and Sheerness contain some of the greatest poverty in Britain.
Although it is not well known, a ward in Folkestone is the second poorest in the country and Sheerness contains the fifth and sixth poorest wards. We do not hear such things about Kent and it is rarely pointed out in the House that some of the poverty registers on the national scale. We need help on the island. Our industries are old, even though the port is recovered and booming, and 160 people working in the steel industry are about to be made redundant. We need a little help and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the cheque out and sign it as soon as he can.

Mr. Paul Clark: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this important debate.
Other colleagues will no doubt make the case for the bids that have been submitted, all of which are for the Thames gateway area, which is a Government priority for regeneration. The Thames gateway has the ability to deliver the opportunities, priorities and policies that the Government want because it has an abundance of brown-field sites. With sustainable development, we can consider spatial planning concepts and take a lead in the urban renaissance that is so desperately needed. We can also help to resolve the congestion issues, which are compounded by the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. of people from the Medway travel outside the area to work, principally to London or the county town of Maidstone.
Our request for assisted area status is not only about creating opportunities; it is about deliverability. We have drawn attention to success stories such as Crossways,

Bluewater, Chatham Maritime, and Gillingham business park. While those are all important, we need a strong catalyst to tap the potential in the three areas that seek assisted area status. We have the public and private partnerships that will allow us to deliver. Local authorities, and voluntary and training organisations, have a good record on that, and the catalyst is assisted area status, which will enable us to deliver on Government policies and priorities, and for present and future constituents.

Mr. Chris Pond: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on winning this important debate and stress that, as he said, we are not talking about doom and gloom in north Kent, although all our constituencies have areas of real deprivation. Last night, I was at one of the most deprived areas in my constituency, Denton, where Conservative-controlled Kent county council proposes to close a school. That would have a significant effect on the regeneration of that area.
I also wish to underline a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) about the role of commuting in north Kent. Hon. Members will be aware that the unemployment figures by constituency were published recently. They show that unemployment in my constituency of Gravesham has fallen by 30 per cent. in just two years and by 15 per cent. in the past year alone. What is puzzling is that the official figures from the Office for National Statistics, which are only just being published for May for the first time, show that, on analysis—I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that analysis—unemployment in my constituency would be a fifth higher were it not for commuting. Some 20,000 people a year commute out of Gravesham to work, but only a third of that number come into Gravesham for that purpose.
Will the Minister consider the need to ensure that those jobs can be provided in north Kent so that people do not need to commute out of the area? I realise that the Government are committed to reducing commuting and road traffic, and that is one way in which it could be effectively achieved.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate.
My constituency of Dartford has enormous potential and has already shown how it can work with other areas, particularly other parts of the Thames gateway, to produce significant results. However, it has many post-industrial brown-field sites that need regeneration. The Bluewater Park complex, which has already been mentioned, has created up to 9,000 jobs and the Channel tunnel rail link will pass through the constituency. I look forward to the second phase of that link being constructed on time and delivering the much-needed Ebbsfleet station and the associated development and jobs.
The key to development of the area is transport infrastructure. North Kent cannot be opened up to proper industrial and housing development without the right transport links—without it, there will be traffic chaos.
I look forward to hearing how the Government will play their part in ensuring that projects such as Fast Tracks, a public transport scheme that will link the centre of Gravesham with the centre of Dartford, can be developed using Government help so that the public transport infrastructure is opened up and the area develops to its full potential. That will bring the jobs and housing that we so desperately need.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I associate myself with the paean to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for obtaining this important debate?
I simply wish to draw the Minister's attention to two factors that are peculiar to the inner city of Kent, which is represented by the Medway towns: first, its geographical proximity to the immense wealth of London and the south-east; and, secondly, the juxtaposition of our difficulties, which are normally associated with areas outside the south-east.
The Medway towns form the largest conurbation in Europe that does not have its own university. We have fine further education facilities but no dedicated university. That leads to a deficit in education, but also in identity. When the dockyards were closed at Chatham and all the industries that were immediate adjuncts to them disappeared, we lost not only employment, but identity.
The Isle of Grain represents an enormous opportunity. It is the largest inward investment site in the south-east of England—indeed, probably in the whole of England. It consists of 1,000 acres of brown-field land, which is now empty, and it is close to the second-biggest container port in the UK. It is a massive untapped facility, not just for north Kent but for this part of Europe.
It is with great joy that I take part in this debate in order to emphasise again the existence of those opportunities, which are so close to London and simply waiting to be tapped.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I do not wish to gild the lily, but I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate. I know how assiduously he works for his constituents, as do his colleagues who have also spoken this afternoon.
This important subject is a matter of concern not only in Kent; I have seen more than 50 colleagues about it in the past few months. Financial assistance is an important factor—although not the only one—in stimulating investment by industry. It can therefore be crucial in safeguarding and creating jobs in areas where they are desperately needed.
My hon. Friend and his colleagues put the case eloquently for north Kent today, and described both the problems and the opportunities of the area. They underlined many of the points that we discussed when I met delegations from Kent and the Thames gateway parliamentary group in March on this subject. Those points were also clearly made in the Kent authorities' response to the public consultation.
I assure all my hon. Friends who have spoken today that careful attention is being paid to the needs of the north Kent area, as it is for all areas of Great Britain, under the review of the assisted areas. I understand how concerned they are about the outcome. I therefore hope that it will be helpful if I set out briefly where we now stand in the process of constructing that map.
As my hon. Friends know, the review follows publication last year of new European Commission guidelines on regional aid, which require all member states to propose new assisted areas to operate from 1 January 2000. The Commission's guidelines are part of an effort to control the overall level of state aids in Europe. The United Kingdom, and the European Union as a whole, faces a reduction in the population coverage of its map. The figure for the UK is about three quarters of our current coverage, which inevitably means that we face some hard choices in designating areas. The Government have been considering carefully the proposals that we shall make for the new assisted areas, and we shall put those to the Commission as soon as possible.
Let me refer briefly to the wider picture. The UK has traditionally been one of the lowest providers of state aids in Europe. Removing distortions to competition by reducing overall levels of state aid should help British firms, both inside and outside the assisted areas. The lower aid limits that the guidelines will introduce are expected to bear down particularly on other European Union states. Although we shall face difficult choices in drawing up the map, there is some good news for British firms, not just those in the assisted areas.
The Commission asked for proposals to be submitted by 31 March. That was always an ambitious deadline, and we were not by any means the only member state not to be able to comply with it. We are working to complete the map as soon as possible, and the Commission is aware of that; but our priority must be to achieve the best possible outcome for Great Britain. We shall make our proposals known as soon as we are ready to do so, and I expect that to be shortly.
We are also reviewing areas for support from the European structural funds. A consultation period closed on 25 May. Along with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Departments, we are now considering criteria and areas for funding based on local and regional representations in order to help draw up the United Kingdom list of proposed areas. The list will be submitted to the Commission in July.
The structural funds and assisted areas maps have different purposes, and will not be identical. However, we want to ensure that they represent a coherent approach to regional development. We have tried to identify areas of need where there are opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration—areas where financial assistance to industry will be an effective method of tackling need. We do not have a completely free hand. Under the Commission's guidelines, some areas will qualify automatically for assisted area status. Under the European system of units for regional statistics, they are NUTS2 areas—areas whose gross domestic product per head is below 75 per cent. of the European Union average according to the latest statistics. NUTS stands for "nomenclature of units of territorial statistics".
We can then propose other areas up to our overall population ceiling; but we must use up to five social or economic indicators and one common unit of geography for the whole country. Areas must also have a population of more than 100,000—or a population that counts as 100,000 against our population total, even if they are smaller.
We are considering the indicators that we shall use for the map, but we expect that, in line with the results of the public consultation, measures of labour-market weakness will be an important factor. Complications are involved in the choice of geographical unit. We have examined a range of options, but, as I am sure that my hon. Friends will recognise, aligning the choice with the various criteria has been a complex operation. We received more than 350 responses to the public consultation, and, as I said, I have met more than 50 Members of Parliament to discuss the review and how it affects the areas that they represent. We have engaged in complex discussions, which I think will soon come to fruition.
In England, the new regional development agencies will play an important role. They are the lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment, improving skills and improving the competitiveness of business and regeneration. A primary aim of the South East of England development agency, which started its work in April, is to promote economic development and regeneration in the region. It is currently preparing a strategy, of which both the opportunities offered by north Kent and the needs of the area will no doubt be an important part.
There are other instruments to address the needs mentioned by my hon. Friends. For example, the South East of England development agency administers the single regeneration budget. A number of SRB-funded activities are taking place in Kent. Some £3.6 million is being spent on supporting projects to deal with poverty in the north Kent Thames gateway area, which should enable the area to benefit from opportunities arising from the Thames gateway development. SRB funds have also played a part in the development of Chatham Maritime by establishing a business innovation centre that provides managed work space for high-technology businesses.
As Minister with responsibility for small firms, I am particularly concerned about the role of such firms. They have a crucial part to play in economic growth and prosperity, and in economic regeneration. As the economy becomes increasingly global and new information and

communications technologies have a massive impact, small firms will be particularly important in generating growth and regenerating areas. They are flexible and adaptable enough to respond rapidly to changing markets.
There has been an explosive growth in the internet, and in its transformation of businesses. I understand that a web year is now three months rather than a normal calendar year. Small businesses are able to respond especially quickly in the new economy. Moreover, because they are flexible and often mobile, and are not constrained as traditional businesses are, they are often able to offer particular prospects for regeneration, possibly even in north Kent. They are a crucial part of the vision statement set out in the competitiveness White Paper, which was published in December. We are now looking across the board at new measures to support the growth of smaller businesses in selected areas that have particular needs, and that may well benefit north Kent.
We are already taking a number of steps to support and encourage the development of small businesses. We are setting up a Small Business Service—on which we shall consult shortly—to streamline the support services that we offer small businesses, and to make them more coherent. We are setting up an enterprise fund, worth some £180 million over three years, which will give special help to small and medium-sized enterprises by giving them access to loans and, in particular, small packages of venture capital on a regional basis. We know that there has been an equity gap in the past, and we think that the enterprise fund will help to give small businesses new momentum. Again, I hope that that will benefit the people of north Kent. We are still working with the regional development agencies to develop new measures to push the agenda forward.
The Government are well aware of the needs of north Kent. We recognise the force of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends today and, indeed, at our earlier meeting. As I have said, the Government have not yet finalised their proposals for the new map, and I am afraid that I cannot predict the outcome today; but I assure my hon. Friends that the case for the area is being considered carefully, and that we shall continue to move as quickly as we can towards finalising our proposals.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

GM Foods

Mr. Christopher Chope: When he next intends to meet the members of the biotechnology presentation group to discuss Government policy on genetically modified foods. [86779]

Mr. Norman Baker: What plans he has to make public the work of the biotechnology presentation group. [86783]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): In line with the practice adopted by successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Government to reveal details of internal discussions, a principle that is reflected in the code of practice on access to Government information.

Mr. Chope: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he not agree that the mere fact that the presentation group was established shows that the Government are more obsessed with media manipulation—to try to make their policies taste better—than with serving the public?
Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 May, when he made his statement to the House, he omitted to refer to a quite significant point in the report from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, who both said that they thought it essential that there should be health monitoring of all who are consuming GM foods? Why did he choose to make no reference to that in his statement of 21 May, and why was that statement by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser played down in the so-called fact sheet issued by the Cabinet Office?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that, because it is all rubbish. The reality is that all Governments have brought together Ministers, advisers and civil servants, the better to present the reality and facts of their policy; and that will continue. As for playing down the report of the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, I published the report in full on the day that I made statement to the House, although I was not obliged to do so under the code.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Norman Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Order. This is perhaps another occasion on which a letter has simply been put on the board by a Department, but the Member himself has not been informed. Perhaps the Minister will follow through on that. I call Mr. Williams.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When will the Government realise that the problems with GM foods are not simply a matter of presentation? The public have decided that there is no need for GM foods, and are taking their lead—in showing

deep scepticism about such foods—far more from the Consumers Association and English Nature. When will the Government stop shooting the messenger and realise that they are themselves off message?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that either. The Government have never believed that it was only a matter of presentation; we believed that it was also a matter of choice. That is why, unlike our predecessors, we decided to introduce labelling of all genetically modified foods, so that consumers could have a choice. As for being off message, the Government's position is absolutely clear: we want an open informed debate about the issues. However, as the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser concluded, no inherent danger is presented to the public from genetically modified food.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a pleasure to be opposite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and a pleasure that I hope to enjoy on several occasions in the future—HON. MEMBERS: "For years."] Not for years, no, I hasten to tell Labour Members.
The Minister will know that the biotechnology presentation group, in the minutes of its meeting of 10 May, took the view that it should revise the paper from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. Subsequently, on 21 May, the Minister made a statement to the House and published such a document. Is the document that the Minister published precisely the document that was originally submitted to Ministers?

Dr. Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his new and important role on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will do well and I hope that he will enjoy it. As for the paper from the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, let me be candid with him and with the House. A draft paper was presented to Ministers. It was then revised by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser to include some recommendations. No changes were made to the paper at any time by Ministers.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is clear that the paper that was published was not the paper that was originally put to Ministers. Will he undertake to the House that he will publish, in addition to the paper that we saw on 21 May on the health implications of genetically modified foods, the paper as it was originally put to Ministers? Or does he have some reason for withholding that original advice as put by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I will not publish it, because after discussion with Ministers, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser decided to change the way in which the paper was presented, but none of their recommendations or conclusions changed the way in which the paper was presented. When it was presented, it included some recommendations from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.
No changes were made to the paper by Ministers at any time. I cannot say that any more clearly or candidly to the House and the hon. Gentleman. The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser have both made it clear


not only that Ministers did not seek to change the paper but that any such proposal would rightly have been resisted had it been made. It never was made.

Older People

Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the progress of the better government for older people project. [86780]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The annual report of the better government for older people programme was published on Monday. It showed how older people themselves are actively engaged in the design and delivery of the public services that they use and rely on. This is a key part of the modernising public services initiative.
The programme has also set up an on-line learning network to disseminate good practice and discussion and provide advice and guidance.

Ms Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Watford is one of the pilot projects and that there has been much success in setting up new services for older people and consulting them about what services they would like? Will he provide information to the House on how we can ensure that those projects and the benefits from them are available in the longer term to many more older people?

Mr. Eric Forth: That is a tricky one.

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is certainly not tricky for my side of the House. I will answer directly. I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent project in Watford. There are 27 other pilot schemes around the country. I stress that they are pilot schemes. They have been running for one year, and one of the objectives is that they will roll out after two years. We are looking at ways of finding seed funding to ensure that we can extend the good lessons that have been learned from the projects to other areas. We are looking at ways in which lessons on good practice can be disseminated. I am happy to report to the House that, on the basis of the first annual report of the programme, I have every expectation that there will be widespread take-up of the lessons learned.

Mr. John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman wants better government for older people, why did he make no representations whatever to the Treasury against the abolition of tax credits on dividends, given the peculiarly damaging effect that it had on thousands upon thousands of relatively low-income elderly investors the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government recognise that older people come from different points. That is what underpinned the pensions review. The appointment of a royal commission to examine the funding for long-term care for the elderly is another way in which we are approaching the wider needs of older people.
The remit of my Department involves looking at how we can improve the public services which impact on the lives of older people. We have set that out in our four

principles. We are improving the delivery of services and actively engaging the experience of older people. We are celebrating the fact that older people are an important part of our society, and we are piloting new forms of partnership with the private sector, local authorities and voluntary organisations.

Drug Misuse

Mr. Ben Chapman: What his plans are for tackling drug misuse at a local level. [86782]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Drug action teams are the mechanism for delivering the Government's anti-drug strategy locally. Each year, they agree local action plans with the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal has been done locally to care for those with drug addiction including the supervised administration of methadone, the provision of clean needles to users and making drug units accessible and usable by addicts? Does he also agree that the most important target is to reduce the proportion of people taking drugs—in other words, to cure as well as care? Will he join me in welcoming projects on the Wirral which focus on preventing young people from using drugs and getting current users off them?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I applaud that important work because it is consistent with the Government's policy objectives, as set out in the White Paper and the first report from Mr. Keith Hellawell. I am happy to welcome the effective work being done by the Wirral drug action team and my hon. Friend's emphatic support for that work.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that schools provide the most appropriate local level at which to educate young people about the danger of taking drugs? Can he give the House a guarantee that sufficient investment is being provided to schools to ensure that teachers, who may not be experts in detecting drug use or educating youngsters about the dangers of drugs, are given the training necessary to enable them to tell youngsters about the dangers of so-called soft drugs and so-called designer drugs such as ecstasy, as well as heroin, crack cocaine and other substances which could endanger their lives?

Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to ensure that schoolchildren are given good quality advice and information about the threat posed to them by all kinds of drugs. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that. I announced last autumn an additional £217 million for this and related work, of which the Department for Education and Employment will get a share. There is already a high percentage of effective drug work going on in our schools, but we can improve on that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment shares the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is understandably widespread. We will continue to improve on the present situation.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I invite my right hon. Friend to Blyth Valley where we had a big


problem with drugs? Over the past few years the community has got together with the health service, the local authority and the police and, after two or three years of hard graft, clearing the streets of drug dealers and setting up various escape organisations and parents against drugs groups, backed by European money, we have nearly cracked the problem. I invite my right hon. Friend to come along and have a look.

Dr. Cunningham: I should be happy to try to find time to visit my hon. Friend and his constituents in Blyth. He is right to say that it is essential that, in addition to work on education, information, treatment and rehabilitation, there should be no let-up by the police in disrupting the work of the criminals who supply and traffic in drugs and present such a danger to all of us.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister reaffirm his commitment, given to the House on several occasions, to the notion that parents have an essential role to play in the matter of children and drugs? Why have the Government backed the recommendation in a recent report by the standing conference on drug abuse that confidential treatment can be given to teenagers without the knowledge of their parents? Is it not totally irresponsible for agencies to usurp the responsibilities of parents; and is not there already enough deceit in drug abuse without adding more?

Dr. Cunningham: I share the hon. Lady's concern. I do not object to her making that point, but the Government have not wholly endorsed the report to which she referred. I regard it as a substantial and important piece of work and we will naturally consider all its proposals and recommendations, but we certainly have not given them a blanket endorsement.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the parents, the police and the education authorities in Nottinghamshire on setting up the ground-breaking DARE—drug awareness resistance education—project in schools, which involves police officers going into schools and working with teachers in order to alert young people to the dangers of drugs? Such is the programme's success that it has been extended, as a project respect programme, to secondary schools.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I welcome the work of DARE. We continue to get very positive reports about its operations. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary visited the project before the general election. We are well aware of its excellent work and we support it.

GM Foods

Madam Speaker: I understand that Mr. Baker received no notification from the Department about the linking of his question. That has happened twice in two weeks, although on the other occasion it was a different Department. I am willing to call the question now.

Mr. Norman Baker: What plans he has to make public the work of the biotechnology presentation group. [86783]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): First, I offer the hon. Gentleman and the House an apology, because I understood that he had been notified; I am sorry that he had not. I am happy to answer his question.
In line with the practice adopted by successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Government to reveal details of internal discussions, a principle that is reflected in the code of practice on access to Government information.

Mr. Baker: I understand that answer, but why, when he gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, which was studying the co-ordination of Government policy on GM technology, did the Minister fail to mention in any of his written or oral evidence even the existence of the spin unit, which it subsequently transpired had been operating at the time of the inquiry? Does he agree with the Minister for the Environment, who told me in the House last week that the only way to engender confidence is to be as open as possible? Will he publish minutes of the biotechnology presentation group for us all to see?

Dr. Cunningham: It is not Government practice to announce or discuss ad hoc or even regular meetings of Ministers who get together to discuss Government policy. The hon. Gentleman already knows the answer to the second part of his question, because he has asked it before. The answer is no.

Correspondence

Mr. Robin Corbett: In what ways he monitors the performance of Government Departments in meeting targets for responding to correspondence. [86784]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): All Departments and agencies have a target for responding to correspondence, and monitor and publish performance against it. In addition, my Department prepares an annual report to Parliament summarising performance. The report on the Government's handling of correspondence from hon. Members was published on 11 June.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I do not think it good enough. I know of constituents who have written to the Department and had to wait five or six months or more for a reply. The Treasury has taken three months to reply to a letter from my office, and the Department of Trade and Industry, four months. I urge my hon. Friend to put in place financial penalties for Departments that consistently fail to meet targets for replying to correspondence from Members of Parliament and, more important, members of the public.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Of course it is our aspiration to ensure that all correspondence is answered speedily and accurately. To that end, we set very challenging targets to be met over a period of three years. We have not yet had the three years in which to make an assessment. We are, for the second time, publishing more accurate information on the situation, which is a marked step forward. If we are to change things, we must know how bad the problem is. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to


admit that many Departments and Government agencies have considerably improved their performance in the past two years.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is a beacon in this respect, because he always replies extremely quickly and promptly. Does he agree with me that there are too many Departments from which replies are not only late but not signed by the Minister involved? If our constituents write to Members of Parliament about matters that concern them, surely Ministers should have the common good manners and decency to sign the reply and send it on time.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Like the hon. Gentleman, I would expect Ministers to respond quickly and in a manner consonant with the expectations of the House. There is no argument about that. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that there are different situations in different Departments. As he will know from his own experience, some Departments receive a huge amount of correspondence, although that is no excuse for not dealing with it. Earlier this year, we held a seminar on how to improve things, which was attended by the correspondence units of various Departments. We intend to follow that up with another seminar in September. We are looking for marked improvements.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if Departments, or his fellow Ministers, were instructed not to answer letters from Members of the Scottish Parliament on issues that involve a reserved power?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are dealing with that issue in our current review.

GM Foods

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans he has for a public information campaign regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [86785]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government welcome an informed public debate on these matters. To assist that, we have published the documents produced by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food, and transparency guidelines for the biotechnology regulatory committees.

Mr. Swayne: The leaked minutes of the biotechnology presentation group on 10 May show that it was proposed that endorsement of the Government's policy should be sought from the National Consumer Council. In the event, was such an approach made, and was the endorsement forthcoming?

Dr. Cunningham: Ministers, collectively and individually, discuss the development of our policies with the National Consumer Council and with other consumer organisations all the time.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are widespread misgivings

among the public about some of the implications of GM foods? For decisions to be taken openly and transparently, as he wishes, there is a need to ensure that the long-lasting effects of some GM inputs into the food chain are fully understood—for example, the effect of soya beans may last for four or five years. In planning to deal with the GM question, will he ensure that that aspect is taken fully on board?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course I accept that we should be open and transparent, and should give the public all the information available to us—and we do. I published in full the chief medical officer's paper on the safety aspects of genetically modified food. We have no evidence that these foods—the previous Administration licensed only three of them—present any health threat to the public. Because of public concern, we decided to introduce the labelling of all genetically modified products, so that people could have a genuine and informed choice. We shall continue to ensure that all the information that is available to Ministers on this important subject is available to the public.

Public Appointments

Dr. Tony Wright: What plans he has for further changes to the system of appointment to public bodies. [86786]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee? I look forward to working with him.
The White Paper on modernising government makes clear our commitment to ensuring that public appointments are open to the widest possible field of candidates. I shall keep the current system of appointments under review to ensure that it continues to support that commitment.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer and his kind words. He will know that one of the features of the public appointments system created by Nolan when he had to clean up the mess from the previous Government was that there should be independent members on selection panels. There is still a problem with the system, because the independent members come via Departments. Would it not be better if they came under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Public Appointments? Would not that give further confidence in the system?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, we have extended the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the fine job that she is doing. We keep all the circumstances under review. It is more important to encourage a greater range of people to come forward, including women and members of the ethnic minorities, and to make greater use of the huge reservoir of potential and good will in the files of the public appointments unit.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister consider setting up a commission, independent of the Government, to investigate the response from


Departments to Members' letters? The report that he talked about, on the lateness of correspondence, dealt with 1997, not 1998, and even it was six months late. A letter for me arrived this morning five months late. Surely we should have an independent public body investigating why Ministers do not respond to letters.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would have heard a full response on that point. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is to ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are met and that we do not get into the mess that the previous Government got into, with a series of particularly partial appointments in the unelected sector.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Do the Government prefer the view of Mr. Michael Portillo to that of the Leader of the Opposition on whether the payment of money to a political party should disqualify someone from public appointments; and on whether participation in politics by many people in public affairs should be welcomed?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is hard to choose between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Michael Portillo. I shall leave it to the Conservatives to decide who speaks for them. We maintain the principle that appointments should be made on merit. That is the Government's overriding concern.

Regulations

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What targets he proposes to set for the better regulation programme for the next two years in removing unnecessary regulations. [86787]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): All Departments have been asked to identify outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations. We shall then set about removing them. We also hope to extend the scope of the order-making power in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in a civilised society regulation is essential and that it is the Government's target to get rid of all unnecessary red tape and regulation and replace it with workable, acceptable regulations that help this country to be competitive?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him and his Committee on their work. I am anxious that we should provide more work for them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have the highest regard and respect for the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give six examples of unnecessary regulations that his Government have taken off the statute book?

Dr. Jack Cunningham: I am delighted to have the confidence of the hon. Gentleman and his support is always welcome. As for unnecessary regulation, there will always be a requirement for Governments to regulate. Indeed, in the last two years of the previous Administration there was more regulation than we have introduced in our first two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Helen Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Helen Jones: Given the stunning 60 per cent. fall in youth unemployment and the creation of 100,000 jobs under the new deal, will the Prime Minister tell my young constituents how many apologies he has received from the Tories, who were content to leave them on the scrap heap, and the Liberal Democrats, who thought that it was not worth spending money on them? Does he accept that people in heartland Labour seats such as mine and in middle England know full well that Labour promised and delivered on the new deal and youth unemployment, whereas the Tories and the Liberals offered them no deal?

The Prime Minister: It is true that 100,000 young people have now found jobs through the new deal, and that 85 per cent. of them were not subsidised at all. That is in addition to Bank of England independence, which has produced the lowest interest rate for 30 years; the largest ever rise in child benefit; the minimum wage; 2 million families helped by the working families tax credit; and, this autumn, a f100 bonus for pensioners. All those measures have one thing in common: the Tories would scrap them.

Mr. William Hague: In this crucial and difficult week for Northern Ireland, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House desperately want to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full, does the Prime Minister recall the commitment that he made to the people of Northern Ireland on the morning of the referendum last year, when he said:
Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland Government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombing, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism."?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that those criteria have been satisfied by the Loyalist or Republican paramilitaries?

The Prime Minister: I do hold to those commitments. It is important that anyone who goes into the Executive in Northern Ireland is fully committed to peace. In respect of the ceasefires, I know that there are difficult judgments to be made, and obviously they are made on the advice of the Chief Constable. We keep those judgments under review, but we believe still at the present time that the judgments that we have made are the right ones.

Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that the beatings, shootings and mutilations continue and are being


carried out by organisations that actually signed the agreement? Terrorist structures remain fully operational and fully armed and 277 terrorists are back on the streets, including yesterday the Brighton bomber walking free. Do not those grim facts show that the real obstacle to progress is not the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP, the Government or the Opposition, but the refusal of terrorist groups to decommission their illegal weapons?

The Prime Minister: Well, they have to decommission their weapons; that is clear. It is an obligation under the agreement. These judgments on ceasefires are very difficult indeed. For example, during the previous ceasefire under the previous Government there were prisoners who benefited from a reduction in sentence under the earlier legislation that was in place. Between April 1995 and January 1996, seven people were murdered by organisations generally regarded as front organisations for the IRA. The then Government took the view that in the round the ceasefire remained in place. I say that not to score points, but merely to show how difficult these judgments are. We have one last chance to push for peace in this process and I hope that the whole House will give us its support in trying to achieve it.

Mr. Hague: They are difficult decisions. The Conservative party and millions of people across the country support the Good Friday agreement and want it to succeed, but look with dismay on the early release of terrorists and their possible inclusion in Government when not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. However, I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that they must decommission. As we approach next week's deadline, will he give an undertaking that until there has been a credible and verifiable start to decommissioning, he will not ask the First Minister of Northern Ireland to enter an Executive with Sinn Fein?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to end up negotiating the terms of the agreement in the next few days. I said last night and last week—and have done so on a number of occasions—that there are two essential foundation blocks for the process to work. One is that everyone accepts that there is an inclusive Executive that involves all parties that are committed to peace. The second is that there has to be decommissioning. My view throughout has been that the sequencing is a matter for negotiation, and that can be judged between the parties. However, there must be no question at all but that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement.
I made that very clear at the time of the Hillsborough declaration, when I said that
decommissioning is not a pre-condition but is an obligation deriving from the commitment in the Agreement, and that it should take place within the timescale envisaged in the Agreement and through the efforts of the independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
Last week, I said:
Decommissioning is not a prior pre-condition of the Executive. But it is plainly part of the process. All parties are obliged to help bring it about. No-one will believe that a party with a close connection with a paramilitary group could not bring about decommissioning.
There is a negotiation that we must have, and I hope that all parties will approach that with an open mind. However, the first key thing is to get straight whether

people do agree with those two foundation blocks. I do not yet know whether they do. We have not had from any paramilitary group an absolute commitment to decommissioning at all—in any time scale. We need to be sure of those things before we move forward.

Mr. David Marshall: Further to these exchanges on Northern Ireland, is it not a fact that the progress made so far has been based on the bipartisan support in this House, which we so freely gave while in opposition? As some people do not appear to recognise that fact, will my right hon. Friend emphasise yet again how important it is that every party in this House understands the need for all of us to get behind the Good Friday agreement, as it is the only hope for peace in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—is the only chance for peace. If this agreement goes down, the result will not be that there will be decommissioning—there will be no decommissioning. The result will not be an end to violence. There is no doubt at all that there will be renewed violence. I want to try to preserve this one chance for peace that Northern Ireland has. Every person in the Government—including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—has done nothing since the election but try to facilitate the process. That is all we can ever do. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever community, realise that the vast majority of people in Britain simply want to allow the deal to work so that they can have a peaceful future for their children.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As Northern Ireland now balances precariously between peace and a return to conflict, is it not the case that although some of the compromises necessary to secure the Good Friday agreement may well have been uncomfortable—even distasteful—the fact is that it remains the only vehicle we have for peace; that those who seek to unpick one element of it run the risk of undermining the integrity of it as a whole; and as with the last Government, so with this—those who support peace in Ireland ought to be supporting the agreement rather than playing politics at home?

The Prime Minister: There is only one way forward—the Good Friday agreement. I endorse entirely what the right hon. Gentleman says—people cannot pick different parts. Of course parts of it are distasteful, particularly when people see prisoner releases. However, I hope that I have indicated by going back over previous ceasefires that distasteful things happened then, but the previous Government were right to continue pushing for peace and we are right to carry on doing the same.

Mr. Ashdown: Is it not also the case that history and the people of Ireland, north and south, are not likely to forgive those politicians—whether in Ireland or elsewhere—who are not prepared to make the last compromises to secure peace? Does the Prime Minister agree that the letter of the Good Friday agreement does not say that decommissioning should be a precondition, but that it should be a commitment? But the spirit of it is quite clear. It says that those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of arms in the past must now


provide concrete evidence that they see the future for Ireland on the basis of removal of arms from Ireland in the future.

The Prime Minister: It is right—I think everyone accepts—that it is not a precondition, but it is a requirement of the agreement. There is no doubt about that. What I would like to do with the parties next week is to sit down and work out when and how that process of decommissioning happens and when and how we set up the Executive on an inclusive all-party basis. But people have to accept—before we can do that negotiation—those two foundation blocks. My view is that decommissioning should have happened two years ago. It should have been happening all the time. It should never have been the case that people had weapons in the first place. But we work with the reality we are in and we try to change that reality, which is what the whole process has been about.
Before people dismiss that and say that nothing has been gained from the past two years, I remind them that we have agreement on the constitutional basis for Northern Ireland, agreement to the principle of consent, agreement to an Assembly, agreement to north-south bodies, agreement to the British-Irish Council—[Hon. MEMBERS: "What about decommissioning?"] Yes, we understand that decommissioning has yet to be resolved, but I am saying that we have made a lot of progress. For heaven's sake, let us have some good will to make the rest of the progress too.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the successful outcome of the negotiations with BMW to ensure investment in the continuing success of the Rover plant at Longbridge in the city of Birmingham? May I specifically welcome the link between the grant and the investment by BMW in ensuring a full range of models and investment in improving skills and competitiveness?

The Prime Minister: The BMW group's decision is a massive vote of confidence in the UK car industry and in the future of Rover. It will result in a further £1 billion investment in Longbridge. Not only will that secure the long-term future of Longbridge and more than 8,800 jobs, but it will result in the creation of a new plant capable of competing with the best in the world. That is great news for Longbridge, for the west midlands and for the country as a whole.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When the Prime Minister meets his obligation in his manifesto, as he said he would, to hold a referendum on Lord Jenkins's proposals on proportional representation, how will he vote—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I dealt with this question extremely well last week when I said that, on the Jenkins committee report, we have not ruled out the option of a referendum before the election, but we have made it clear that, as the Jenkins recommendations could not be introduced at the next election, there is a case for leaving it until afterwards. I will obviously listen to the debate.

Dr. Tony Wright: Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had time to

notice, among all his other pressing engagements, that it has been a less than glorious summer for British sport? Are we not paying a terrible price for losing 5,000 school playing fields under the previous Government and for losing 75 per cent. of sporting fixtures between schools under the previous Government? Is it not time that we stopped being the gallant losers of world sport and started investing in success, and is that not what the Government's proposals this week are designed to achieve?

The Prime Minister: Yes, this is an extra £60 million to set up 600 school sportspeople to go round and ensure that we build up sports. We are also introducing legislation to protect school playing fields, because under the Conservatives 40 a month were being sold off. The Conservatives failed sport in this country; and under the new Labour Government we are making a fresh and new start.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The House of Lords yesterday amended the House of Lords Bill to give some statutory backbone to the Government's promise to reduce the Prime Minister's powers of patronage over the future appointment of life peers. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to welcome that amendment, and indicate whether the Government will accept it? If not, why on earth not?

The Prime Minister: We introduced the Appointments Commission. For the first time, there will be an objective process of appointment. We are making two great changes. The first is to introduce objectivity for the first time, by means of the Appointments Commission. That will happen in time for the new year honours list for the millennium. The second change is that we are getting rid of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, who support the Conservative party alone. Both reforms are well worth having.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that earlier today there was a very serious rail crash on the west coast main line. I am sure too that he will support me in wishing all those who have been injured a full and speedy recovery and in thanking the emergency services for their prompt and brave action. Is he able to give the House an update about the number of casualties, when the line is likely to reopen, and whether there will be a full and independent inquiry into the causes of the accident? Does he agree that it is wrong for people to speculate on those causes until we have more information?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join in offering sympathy to the injured and to their families. I know no more than is already publicly available—that more than 30 people were taken to hospital, of whom four have been detained. As for an inquiry, I can tell my hon. Friend that a rail accident inspector is at the scene to investigate the cause of the accident. Any further inquiries should wait until we have his report.

Mr. William Hague: The whole House does, indeed, join with the Prime Minister in sending sympathy to all involved in that crash.
Last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the CBI that the Government
are committed in principle to economic and monetary union
and
have committed our country … to make a decision early in the next parliament.
Does that remain the Government's policy, or will the Prime Minister listen to the debate on that one as well?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it does remain the Government's policy—absolutely.

Mr. Hague: So, the Government's policy has not changed—the Prime Minister's spin doctors will be disappointed. Given that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to joining the euro, and that most people clearly disagree with him, what are his campaign plans to persuade them?

The Prime Minister: I shall carry on arguing for our point of view, which is better than the ridiculous position in which the right hon. Gentleman has put himself. After all, it was Lord Gilmour who said—[Laughter.] Even he is now derided. It was Lord Gilmour who said, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is
the hallmark of weak and unpopular leaders … to be eager to put their small feet down, usually in the wrong place.
I have made our position clear. We do not agree with joining the euro irrespective of the economic conditions, and we do not agree with ruling it out irrespective of the economic conditions. We believe in testing it and keeping the option open, by reference to the economic conditions that we have laid down. That is a clear position.
Now can the right hon. Gentleman answer us this? Is it 10 years? [HON. MEMBERS: "You answer the questions."] I know that I answer the questions, but the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to do so now. Is the euro still ruled out for 10 years, or for ever?

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows what our policy is. Only the Prime Minister can think that the one thing in the world that he is committed to in principle he is not committed to in practice. The truth is that he is 100 per cent. committed to abolishing the pound, and 0 per cent. willing to justify it. He is 100 per cent.-proof new Labour, 100 per cent. arrogance on this subject, and 0 per cent. courage. Does he not now face a choice with regard to the euro? That choice is between admitting that he was wrong in committing this country to abolishing the pound, and having the guts to argue that case against the clear policy of the Conservative party, which is to keep the pound at the next election. That is the policy that the country supports.

The Prime Minister: We have heard it now. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who will fight to save the pound at the next election, but at the election after that, he will give it away. What a ridiculous policy. He accuses me of lacking clarity, but he has appointed as Tory spokesman the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) who, when asked whether the Conservative party would change its policy, said:
Whether our party changes its policy will depend on what the right policy is."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1999; c. 659.]

The right hon. Gentleman has turned the Conservatives into a monomaniac, single issue party. We did some research before Prime Minister's Questions today, and we found that he has asked me more than 50 questions on Europe. How many has he asked on education? None. How many questions has he asked on crime? Two. He has sold his political soul to the extreme right wing of the Conservative party, and at the next election, the Conservatives will be rejected again.

Maria Eagle: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to glance through Hansard this week? If he has, he will have noticed that, on successive days, spokesmen from the Conservative party have reiterated the Opposition's intention to abolish the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. What effect would that have on the Labour Government's commitment to abolish child poverty?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to the minimum wage, opposed to the working families tax credit, opposed to the rise in child benefit and opposed to the new deal—all policies that create greater fairness and help for families. One reason why the Conservatives are so obsessed with Europe is that they wish to conceal the fact that, on every other major policy issue, they are moving further and further and further to the right. When there is not even a place in the Conservative party for people such as Ian Gilmour, a decent one-nation Tory whom Conservative Members deride, we can see just how extreme they are.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising retired workers from the former National Bus Company for their perseverance over the past few years in seeking to regain money looted from their pension fund by the Conservatives at the time of privatisation? For the first time as Prime Minister, will he also praise a trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—for its campaign to secure the return of the money? In Opposition, Labour said—and the pledge was also given by the Deputy Prime Minister at last year's party conference—that the money would be returned in full. Why, then, did the Government seek to give back only £100 million when the real sum is £360 million.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to pay tribute to the Transport and General Workers Union—of which I am a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is as radical as it gets.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pensioners from the National Bus Company should get a fair deal. We are committed to achieving that, and to ensuring that they receive full payment. That has been our commitment throughout, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman might congratulate the Labour Government on delivering on that commitment.

Liz Blackman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the high level of cynicism expressed by teachers in my constituency when we heralded the onset of the literacy hour? Is he surprised to learn, nine months down the road, that cynicism has turned into delight at the high quality of training received by teachers, the quality of resources and the tangible progress made by their charges?

The Prime Minister: In respect of literacy and numeracy, when we came into office, 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of 11-year-olds were not up to the requisite standard, so that when they left primary school, they went to secondary school without a basic grounding in literacy and numeracy. As a result of the changes that we have introduced, we are making huge progress on getting those numbers down, and on improving literacy and numeracy. My hon. Friend may be aware that, in a recent poll, more than 90 per cent. of those engaged in literacy and numeracy studies welcomed those studies. That, in addition to the extra investment in our schools—especially in school buildings, in computer technology and in the reduction of class sizes in our primary schools—gives us a very solid record of which to be proud.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Given that the Prime Minister is the only motorist allowed to use the M4 express bus lane, what advice would he give to those considering the future of that pilot scheme?

The Prime Minister: Why do we not wait to see what evidence the project actually produces—which I should have thought was the right course? That project was asked for by the Highways Agency; it will be tested over a period of months. Why do we not wait to see what it comes up with, in terms both of reduced congestion and of better services for passengers?
The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt whatever that the Labour Government have had to clean up the backlog of road repairs that we inherited. Indeed, the transport spokesman of the Tory party accused us of taxing the motorist, but of not putting the money raised from those taxes into roads. We received the figures today; we are putting in £3 billion more than the previous Conservative Government put in.

Mr. Roger Berry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mencap on its report "Living in Fear", published on Monday? The report identifies the harassment and bullying faced by many people with learning disabilities. Does that not illustrate the importance of the Government's disability awareness campaign? That campaign should be warmly welcomed throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Disability Rights Commission has all the practical support necessary to ensure that all discrimination against disabled people is tackled promptly?

The Prime Minister: The Disability Rights Commission Bill comes back to the House next week. We congratulate Mencap on its report, which we welcome. The report draws attention to the problem of the bullying and abusing of people with learning difficulties. My hon. Friend will know of the additional resources that we are allocating to the new deal for disabled people—almost £200 million. We believe that the first-ever Disability Rights Commission will make a big difference to the rights of disabled people in this country.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why 500 people in this country are dying unnecessarily every year because of long waits for bypass surgery? Furthermore, will he explain why, according to Ben Bridgewater, a consultant heart surgeon at Wythenshawe hospital, it is worse now than it was a year ago?

The Prime Minister: Actually, waiting lists are down substantially on what they were a year ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Waiting times?"] Waiting times are down as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are up."] No, that is wrong; waiting times are down and waiting lists are down but, yes, people are still waiting for treatment. The idea that the problems of people waiting in the health service were created by the Labour Government—[Interruption.]. We had 20 years of Conservative Government that undermined the health service. Today, the figures show that 2,000 more doctors have been recruited to the health service, and that there are thousands more nurses. There is the biggest hospital programme that we have ever had and the largest ever investment in the health service. Yes, it will take time, but do not let us ever take lessons from the hypocrisy and opportunism of the Conservatives, who never believed in setting up the health service, never supported it and would undermine it if they ever got the chance again.

Mr. James Plaskitt: Yesterday, Warwick university received the go-ahead from the Government for a new medical school, with an extra 113 places for trainee doctors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed for the NHS in Coventry and Warwickshire, and elsewhere throughout the country, is not the advocacy of more private insurance, but more of such public investment?

The Prime Minister: Of course. The extra money going into the health service is providing more nurses and doctors, but it takes many years to train a doctor—and it takes three years to train a nurse. However, we are recruiting those extra people and putting the investment in. At the next election, the choice will be very clear—between a Labour Government who are beginning the process of rebuilding a national health service of which this country can be proud, and a Conservative party that is now committed to privatising large parts of the health service and forcing people to take out private health care because the Conservatives will not put investment into the health service. That is another example of the Tory lurch to the right.

Jackie Ballard: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Speaker: Order. Jackie Ballard.

Jackie Ballard: I should like to ask the Prime Minister about leadership. Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the people of this country


are not yet ready to accept the single European currency? If he does, when will he take a lead on the issue—or is his concept of leadership following the focus groups?

The Prime Minister: Oh, I am really wounded by that; I really am.
I believe in setting out a sensible position on the single currency, which is to say that we judge it according to the economic circumstances. As I said recently—and as I have said for a long time—the two absurd positions on the euro are, first, to say either that one rules it out for ever or, even more ridiculously, that one rules it out at the next election but will welcome it at the election after

that. Alternatively, there is the position that the hon. Lady has just espoused: joining the single currency now, irrespective of the economic conditions.

Jackie Ballard: No.

The Prime Minister: If that is not the hon. Lady's position, I suspect that she is in the same position as us. We judge the matter according to the economic test: is the single currency good for British jobs, British investment and British industry? If the hon. Lady agrees with that—and she is nodding her head—she should support my leadership.

Prevention of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are subject to annual renewal by the affirmative resolution procedure. It has, however, recently come to my attention that, because of technical defects in the drafting of the 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, certain provisions in the 1989 Act have not been in force since 22 March 1998.
I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error, for which I take responsibility. I also wish to explain what happened and to advise the House that I intend to revive the provisions, by order, as soon as practicable—subject of course to the approval of the House and the other place.
The provisions concerned are sections 16A, B and C, with schedule 6A and section 16D of the Act. These provisions apply only within Great Britain; there is separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Section 16A makes it an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes. Together, they form part IVA of the Act.
Section 16C provides the power to impose a police cordon in connection with a terrorist investigation, with schedule 6A setting out the powers that may be exercised within a cordoned area. Section 16D imposes parking restrictions in a specified area. Together, they form part IVB of the prevention of terrorism Act.
The powers in sections 16A and 16B were brought into the PTA in 1994, and sections 16C and 16D were introduced in 1996. They continued in force each year until March 1998. It was then both my intention and my understanding—and, I believe, the understanding of the House—that those provisions had continued in force following the renewal debates in 1998 and 1999. However, that has turned out not to be the case.
Earlier continuance orders had referred collectively to parts I to V of the Act, a formulation which obviously includes parts IVA and IVB. It was, as a matter of policy, proposed by Ministers and agreed by Parliament that, in the 1998 and 1999 orders, part II, relating to exclusion orders, should not operate. The 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, following the omission of part II, therefore separately listed parts I, III, IV and V in a way which inadvertently did not include parts IVA and IVB. That drafting subtlety escaped the notice of the draftsmen, Ministers—including myself—the House and the legal profession at that time. It has come to light only as a result of an eagle-eyed author of an article in issue 19 of Criminal Law Week of 24 May 1999.
As soon as that article was drawn to my attention,
I sought advice and, once the status of the sections was clarified, the police were advised not to rely on them. As I have already said, I very much regret that those provisions have not been in force since March 1998.
My information is that six people have been charged with offences under sections 16A and 16B since they came into force in 1995, but no convictions have so far followed in respect of offences alleged to have taken place

either before or after March 1998. One person was on bail awaiting trial for offences under sections 16A and 16B which were alleged to have been committed after 22 March 1998. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney—General has told me that steps have been taken today to quash that indictment. Three other people are also currently on bail charged with offences under section 16A of the PTA, but those alleged offences occurred before 22 March 1998 and none of them relate to Irish terrorism.
Records on the use of section 16C—the power to raise a police cordon—are not held centrally, but I understand that the section has been used reasonably frequently in recent times. The Metropolitan police, for example, have used the provision 86 times since 22 March 1998. However, there have been no convictions under section 16C for breach of a police cordon during the period in which the provision has not been in force.
The ceasefires in Northern Ireland notwithstanding, we still face the threat of terrorism from many quarters. In those circumstances, I think that it is right that the earliest practicable opportunity is taken to revive these measures, so restoring what we all believed to be the status quo. I have therefore tabled a draft order today to bring sections 16A, B, C and D back into operation. That order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the revival of the provisions before they can be brought back into force. The debates will take place as soon as possible.
There is a separate but related point about sections 16A and 16B of the PTA, which arises in the case of Kebeline and others. That is a judicial review case which is scheduled to be heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 19 July. The case turns on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to give his consent to prosecutions for offences under sections 16A and 16B if they are incompatible with the terms of the European convention on human rights.
The Government believe that these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR and are an important part of the armoury in the fight against terrorism. In our view, it is entirely consistent with that position to seek their early revival, now that it has come to light that they are not currently in force. In adopting that course of action, the Government are not attempting to pre-empt, or in any way influence, the outcome of the appeal. We await their lordships' judgment with interest. However, in our opinion, that need not and must not stop us taking action to ensure that all measures required to counter terrorism are properly available to the police and to the courts.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for giving us early notice of it and for allowing us to see its text in good time. I welcome his apology and his assumption of responsibility for what happened.
May I clarify, however, that the effect of his statement is that, for more than a year, the possession of articles for suspected terrorist purposes and the collection of information for the purposes of terrorist activity have not been criminal offences? Could not that have had major implications for terrorist investigations?
The Secretary of State said that the error, which he described as a "drafting subtlety"—plain "error" is the right word—came to notice on 24 May. Why has it taken


a month for the House to be informed? When was the error drawn to his attention and when did he advise the police not to rely on the existing provisions? Other than the one man already charged, have any potential charges been dropped as a result of advice to police not to rely on those provisions?
How serious were the alleged offences in the case of the man who was charged? As bail implies restrictions to liberty, do the Government now face a claim for compensation? Are other offences under investigation? I heard the night hon. Gentleman's statement about charges brought, but would other offences that are actually or potentially under investigation be prejudiced by the error? Am I right to think that the accused man, who has been on bail but will now have his indictment quashed, so no trial will take place, therefore faces no action and no penalty? Was that the thrust of what the Secretary of State said?
We shall, of course, support the order—assuming that it is correctly drafted—when it comes before the House. Similarly, we shall support the Government's view that the provisions are not incompatible with the ECHR.
Finally, we regret that the Government's inability to support our comprehensive prevention of terrorism Act has been at the root of causing this confusion.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for the tenor of her remarks and for her opening comments.
The right hon. Lady asked whether, as a result of the error, it follows that the provision in sections 16A and B, which the House had agreed should be in force for good reasons, was not in force. That is the case. She asked when the error was first brought to my attention: a few days after 24 May—I will seek to give her the exact date—and it was drawn to the attention of the Law Officers. I originally sought proper legal advice about it. She asked why it had taken some time to get that advice: because the matter was complicated. As I said, the error has had serious consequences, but it was, indeed, a drafting error, which was unnoticed by the draftsmen, Ministers, including myself, officials, all our legal advisers and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, it was not noticed by the legal advisers to the defendant, who, as far as I am aware, had not taken up that point in court. It was a complicated issue, although as is often the case with such matters, it now appears to fall easily in place. I decided that, because of the seriousness of the error, I should make an oral statement as soon as possible.
So far as I know—I shall write to the right hon. Lady and have this information placed on the record of the House if there is any change to what I am saying—there are no potential charges in prospect arising from investigations under the terms of the provision in the sections. I cannot give her precise details of the seriousness of the offences—as she knows, it is not appropriate for a Secretary of State to seek to interfere in the criminal process. Let me simply say that the charges were proceeded with on indictment and they therefore had a degree of seriousness attached to them.
The right hon. Lady asked me about compensation. This man was on bail. I understand that he had spent some months in custody before obtaining bail, and that the bail was subject to conditions. We therefore expect to receive

a claim for compensation. I cannot comment on the outcome. We do not know what the result of a trial would have been, but, as the man has been released, what is certain is that no action and no penalty will follow.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We accept the Home Secretary's apology and the need to reintroduce the provisions, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that mistakes of this kind are inherent in the piecemeal way in which we deal with prevention of terrorism legislation? Has he forgotten that the original 1996 provisions were rushed through the House in one day, with his support? We ought to pay much more careful attention to legislation on which the police depend to guard us against terrorism.
The provisions have been challenged on the basis of the ECHR. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he reintroduced them in a new statute, he would have to furnish the House with a formal certificate stating that those provisions complied with the convention? Is he in a position to sign such a certificate?
Given that the Home Office is beginning to chalk up rather too many mistakes that bring the right hon. Gentleman before the House, would he care to let us into the secret of what kind of message he is delivering as a result of being landed in it again?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
Sections 16A and 16B are the sections affecting the charges that have now had to be dropped. They relate to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, not the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996. That Act introduced changes in respect of sections 16C and 16D in part IVB of the Act, as opposed to part IVA, which relates to cordons and parking restrictions. As the measure is subject to annual review, I do not believe that the fact that the House supported the change in 1996—I supported it myself—has anything to do with it. This is a drafting error. I am sorry that it happened, and I have already apologised to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman did, however, raise an important issue: the need for major reform of PTA legislation. As the House knows, I made proposals in October 1997, which have been published in a consultative document. We have received responses, and we hope to produce legislation as soon as possible.
If primary legislation were involved, the right hon. Gentleman would be right to ask whether, in our judgment, a certificate was compatible with the ECHR; but our view, which we will argue powerfully before the Appellate Committee in the other place, is that sections 16A and 16B are compatible with the convention.

Mr. Tom King: I am sure the House accepts that a genuine mistake was made on this occasion. It is in keeping with the Home Secretary's attitude to the House that he felt it necessary to make a personal statement. That, however, is as far as my kindness will go. I want to pursue the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Am I right in thinking that it is currently not an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes, or to collect information that is likely to be useful for terrorist


purposes? If that is so, does the Home Secretary agree that it underlines the sense of urgency that is currently necessary if this serious matter is to be dealt with?
The article appeared on 24 May, but when did the eagle-eyed author actually write it? When he prepared it, did he not do what many authors do when stumbling on something like this, and consult the Law Officers or the Home Office to check that he had got it right? When did information on the situation first become available in Government? If—as the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I certainly believe—the legislation is an important part of the armoury, why are we casually discussing it when—sometime, through the usual channels, depending on the business of the House—we might proceed to replace a serious omission in our defences against terrorism?

Mr. Straw: I made it quite clear that I regard the legislation as a serious part of the armoury. As it happens, it is not a part of the armoury that has been used all that often; it has been the basis of a charge on six occasions since it came into force, at the beginning of January 1995. It also happens that, so far, no convictions have followed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the author of the article in the criminal law journal. The article was unsigned, so I have no idea who the author was. Originally, the article was faxed to the Law Officers. I first learned of it on 26 May, when it was put in my box.

Mr. King: Where has it been since then?

Mr. Straw: As I explained to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we had to take detailed advice on it.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was an error that had been missed not only by Ministers, including myself, parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers on both sides of the House, but by lawyers acting for the defendant. It turns out to have been a very important point, but it was also a relatively obscure one.
The urgency with which we proceed is a matter—the right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) knows the procedures—for discussion in the usual channels, but I hope that the matter will be brought before the House as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the support publicly given by the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for renewing the provisions.
The question whether I should use the urgency provisions within the PTA and bring the provision into force immediately has been raised. My judgment was that, given the nature of the error, it was important for the provision to be renewed by a positive and affirmative act of both Houses, and not under the urgency
provisions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Forgive my puzzlement and being unable to contain my curiosity, but Home Secretaries do not normally come to give statements to the House of Commons as the result of faxed articles, apparently anonymous, to law journals. Someone somewhere must have prompted this. Is it not yet another argument for looking at the piecemeal way in which, year after year, the House has been asked to endorse prevention of terrorism measures spatchcocked

together in a hurry? Is one wrong in suspecting that there really is a case now for going back to the drawing board and producing something properly?

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend has reason to know, the truth is suddenly sometimes an odd beast. I could hardly have made up how we found out about the matter, could I? The United Kingdom's greatest legal minds—and ministerial minds, great or otherwise—missed it, and learned of it from a fax and a criminal law journal. But there we are. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked what I said to people in the Home Office: I said that I have now become a fully paid-up member of the Home Secretary club. I see the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is smiling; he knows what I am saying. What can one say when things like this happen—[Interruption.] I am certainly not going to put them on the record.
On the specific and serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I do not believe that the error was caused by the fact that the prevention of terrorism legislation has been built up over a period. One also cannot argue that the House's approval, after a couple of days, of sections 16C and 16D contributed to the error.
I accept, notwithstanding that point, that there is a strong case for bringing all the temporary legislation together in permanent legislation. We have made our intention to do that clear. Drafting—good drafting—is currently proceeding and we hope to bring legislation before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman has been very candid with the House, but may we return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Is it currently an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes and is it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes? The answers to those questions are pertinent. This error, and the urgency that has been lacking, is extraordinarily pertinent, because the right hon. Gentleman will know that last Thursday the IRA attempted to murder a former member and informer, one Martin McGartland. Will this error and the lack of urgency in rectifying it affect the investigation into that attempted murder in any way?

Mr. Straw: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I thought that I had made it clear that, as the provisions are not in force at the moment—

Mr. King: So it is not an offence.

Mr. Straw: No, it is not an offence. It obviously follows that it cannot be an offence because the provisions are not in force. As it turns out, they have not been in force since March 1998. They will be brought back into force as soon as the House and the other place approves the order.
I ought to make it clear that, before early 1995, there were other provisions in the law for dealing with such alleged offences and they are still on the statute book. They are principally offences of conspiracy. One of the reasons why the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe introduced those offences was the


difficulty in gaining convictions for conspiracy. As for the attempted murder of Mr. McGartland or anyone else, it would be wrong for me to comment on the detail of that investigation. Suffice it to say that in such an incident there are many other offences with which the perpetrator can be charged, including murder or attempted murder.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The House should be very reluctant to introduce retrospective legislation. The leading case for doing so was the necessity to legitimise the fire service during the second world war; otherwise, it would have been illegally run. If the Government were to come to the House and ask it to deny compensation to an individual who had been in custody when the House thought that an offence had been committed with which the individual was charged, they would find some sympathy in some parts of the House.

Mr. Straw: Retrospective legislation is rarely enacted and, as far as I know, never enacted in respect of criminal offences. It would be oppressive even in circumstances such as this.
As for compensation, I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but we always have to ensure that the balance is in favour of the individual and the rights of that individual when we are dealing with matters of criminal justice. As I said, because this man was in custody for some period and then on bail, subject to conditions, for quite a long following period, he may apply for compensation and we anticipate an application. That application will be considered in the normal way.

Mr. Humfrey Manus: The Home Secretary has confirmed that today, 23 June, it is not an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. That is a very serious issue indeed. Given what we have said in the House this afternoon, what he has told us and what the rest of the world therefore knows, is it not of the greatest importance that the matter is remedied immediately, by which I mean not next week or the week after but within a matter of hours or, at worst, tomorrow? I am sure that

there will be the most complete co-operation around the House if the Home Secretary introduces measures to remedy the position.

Mr. Straw: As I have said, this is a serious matter. Many other offences are still in force in the armoury of the law enforcement agencies for dealing with terrorist offences. I have made it clear that the provisions under sections 16A and 16B have never been used in connection with Irish terrorism, although the cordon powers, which supplement common law powers, have been used in the prevention of Irish terrorism. I hope to see the offences and the cordon provisions under sections 16C and 16D brought back into force as quickly as possible. As I said, we welcome the offer of co-operation from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and we look forward to co-operation with the usual channels as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael Howard: The House will understand that I have considerable sympathy for the Home Secretary given the predicament in which he finds himself, but I must return to the questions that have been asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is not a controversial question. The need for such an offence is acknowledged on both sides of the House. The Home Secretary has acknowledged the seriousness of the current situation, in the absence of such an offence on the statute book. Will he reconsider the attitude that he has taken thus far about the need for urgency and the use of the urgency procedures to remedy the situation?

Mr. Straw: I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his sympathy. Although one hopes that some people might not hear this, we may have ended up in the same club. I accept the case for urgency and I have already explained that, given the seriousness of the error and the need for me to report it to the House, it was my judgment that it would have been inappropriate to use the urgency provisions in the Act to bring it straight back into force without the House having had an opportunity for debate. However, given what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will ask my hon. Friends, the business managers, to have urgent discussions about the matter.

Equal Access (Public and Private Buildings)

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish that where men and women are granted access to public or private buildings they are granted equal access; and for connected purposes.
If I suggested to you, Madam Speaker, that there were Rooms in the Palace of Westminster—apart from public conveniences—not open equally to all its Members, whatever their sex, you would be angry. I am angry because many of our sports clubs up and down the country are still closed to women.
For example, Mrs. Joyce Rayner, honorary secretary of the ladies' section of Faversham recreation bowling club in my next-door constituency, wrote to me saying:
I am secretary of the ladies' section … our ladies are treated like second class citizens. We pay exactly the same subscriptions as the men, but we are not allowed any involvement in the administration of the Club, no voting rights and are not even allowed to attend their AGM.
Mrs. Sue Birch, commenting about her golf club, the Robin Hood golf club in Solihull, said:
You may be interested to hear of my recent attempts to overcome the problems I face within my golf club as a woman who cannot vote in club affairs. There are in excess of 250 men and women in my club, who cannot vote and who cannot be selected for or serve on the committee. In addition, because of being a woman, I am not allowed to play until after 4pm on Saturdays and until after lunch on Sundays and I cannot enter the snooker room.
Let us consider this extraordinary tale from Little Aston golf course in the west midlands where a club rule bans women from the "confines of the club" on Saturdays and Sundays. Reacting to the news that her husband had suffered a stroke or heart attack on the course, his wife rushed to his side. She climbed into the ambulance and was taken to hospital. She left her car in the club car park. Some weeks later she received a letter from Little Aston golf club committee saying that she had broken the weekend rule, and was asked to desist from such action in the future.
My next example is perhaps even worse. An American visitor paused as he was about to enter the clubhouse at Royal St. George's golf course. He was filled with doubts about whether his wife would be admitted. To spare her any embarrassment he approached an elderly member in the car park to clarify the situation. The elderly member said, "I am not sure about women—I would have to ask—but we do allow dogs in." Sadly, that sort of thing is a common occurrence across many of the golf courses and sports clubs in this country.
Mrs. Susan Cummings from Tamworth wrote to me about Drayton park golf club, saying that ladies can play on Saturdays at any time except, however, in summer when men's competitions take place and the course is closed to women until after 4 pm. On Sundays, women cannot tee off until after 1 o'clock.
Mrs. Codd from Mayfield in East Sussex writes:
As a working lady golfer I have direct experience of the sorts of blatant discrimination that you are seeking to abolish …In the last year a few of us have been pressing for voluntary change, but have met stalwart resistance at various levels. For instance one lady was told she was militant. Another was forced to resign from one of our

committees for daring to express her views on the subject of equality in the media—even though she did not name the club—which were she was told at variance with that of the board of management. Needless to say our board is all male and no women have ever sat on it. The men's captain does of course.
Traditionally ladies have (unpaid voluntary) responsibility for running their sections, thus saving clubs thousands of pounds each year",
but they have no vote.
The problem is not with golf alone: I could tell tales of unequal access and opportunity in other sports. In soccer, for instance, we have a registered FIFA female agent who is unofficially banned from the men-only boardrooms at football clubs on Saturdays, yet she is in charge of a considerable number of talented men footballers. She is banned from the professional footballers' annual national dinner, which I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport also declined to attend because she was not admitted.
I commend to the House the Equal Opportunities Commission report "Equality in the 21st Century: a New Sex Equality Law for Britain". Page 8 states:
The EOC continues to receive many complaints about the rules and practices of private members' clubs. These clubs are not controlled by the Sex Discrimination Act because they are not concerned with the public. However, we believe the omission of private clubs results in various discriminatory rules and arrangements which support stereotypical images of men and women and limit women's participation in club activities.
I could not agree more.
The nub of the Bill is that it cannot be right that, in public or private buildings or clubs to which men and women have access, access should be determined by sex only. In sport, that has been the case for more than a century. As we attempt to modernise our society, we must at the very least permit women equal access and opportunity.
The Bill would improve on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Ms Claire Ward, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.

EQUAL ACCESS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUILDINGS)

Mr. Derek Wyatt accordingly presented a Bill to establish that where men and women are granted access to public or private buildings they are granted equal access; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 127].

Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, part of my constituency includes the Rover Longbridge plant. Today there was a very welcome announcement that the Government would be spending £150 million to help BMW to reinvest in the plant and to secure many jobs. Is not it appropriate that a statement of that importance, with further implications involving the outsourcing of car components which will have a major impact on employment in the west midlands, should be made in the House so that we could cross-examine the Minister,


rather than at the press conference held this morning, where hon. Members with constituency and other interests could not find out all the relevant facts?

Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, no Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here, but a question was put to the Prime Minister on the matter at Question Time today.

Opposition Day

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

[FIRST PART]

Proportional Representation

Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I have had to limit the speeches of Back-Bench Members to 10 minutes.

Sir George Young: I beg to move,
That this House, in the light of experience of recent elections held on the basis of proportional representation, believes that this is not an appropriate basis for election to the House of Commons; and urges the Government to resolve the uncertainty it has caused on this matter either by abandoning its commitment to hold a referendum, or by holding the referendum forthwith.
Two weeks ago, before the European election results were known, I asked the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on proportional representation in the light of the experience of the three elections held under the new arrangements. My request was refused so, not for the first time, the Opposition have allocated some of their own time to debate a matter of fundamental importance to the House.
An hour ago, when asked about this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the Prime Minister said that he would listen to the debate. I note with some surprise that the Prime Minister is not sitting on the Government Front Bench to listen to what I am sure will be an interesting debate.
My view is that it is right to debate this matter while our recollection of the campaigns and their immediate aftermath is relatively fresh. Also, by having a vote at the end of the debate, we can end the uncertainty that has been caused by the Government's commitment to hold a referendum on PR for Westminster and their refusal to set a firm date. Our motion allows either of two solutions. The one that we prefer is the abandonment of the commitment to hold a referendum, and a declaration that we will stay with the British first-past-the-post voting system for Westminster. That would be the quickest and simplest way to implement what I believe to be the majority view of the House.
However, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, which it gave before the last election. Labour felt that it might need the support of the Liberal Democrats after the election, but I suspect that it may regret having made that commitment. Respecting those sensitivities, and understanding that a referendum may be the only way to resolve the split in the Cabinet, we offer an alternative, which is to hold a referendum forthwith.
Jenkins recommended a two-vote, mixed electoral system with 80 to 85 per cent. of the House being elected by individual constituencies using the alternative vote system and the remainder being elected by city or countywide areas on a top-up basis from party lists.


The impact of the report was softened by the note of reservation of Lord Alexander, who considered that the use of AV was not
sound in principle, easy to understand and above all capable of commanding the enduring respect of the electorate.
The debate on that report took place on 5 November. It was an excellent debate, and I say that because I did not take part in it. Rereading Hansard, I was struck by a number of points. First, the balance of the contributions and the argument was against the Jenkins alternative by a ratio of more than two to one: it was 24:11. The Home Secretary made his position clear. He said:
I therefore remain unpersuaded of the case for change",
although he went on to say, worryingly, that he was
always open to higher argument"—
not a better argument, but a higher argument.
Secondly, I was struck by a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who said:
Electoral systems are not just about elections; they are about the subsequent nature of representation.
Disaffection with the system, as expressed by a low turnout, is not just a problem on polling day: it is a problem for a Parliament. If people do not feel connected to an institution on polling day, they are unlikely to feel connected to it after polling day. The electoral system is a type of political glue between the voter and the institution he or she is voting for. We have a strong glue at the moment, and we should be cautious about using a weaker one.
Thirdly, the Government confirmed that the alternative to first past the post to be put in a referendum is the Jenkins proposals. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who wound up the debate on 5 November, said:
If we are to have change … we now have an alternative, whether we like it or not, alongside which the status quo of the first-past-the-post system can be judged and debated.
So we now know what the choice will be between.
Fourthly, a number of hon. Members who spoke in that debate made the point, confirmed by Jenkins, that there is no public clamour for change. Only nine people attended the public meeting held in Northern Ireland, and only 30 were at the one in Cardiff. I am sure that Labour Members will confirm that focus groups are not focusing on this subject.
Finally, the Government were vague on the timing of the referendum. The Home Secretary said:
As to timing, we have always envisaged that the referendum would be before the next election, and that remains an option."—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1033–1111.]
That is a weakening of an earlier commitment given in the debate on 2 June 1998, when the Home Secretary said:
The plan is that the referendum should take place well before the next election."—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 190.]
More worryingly, the Home Secretary sought in the debate on 5 November to delay reform to the House of Commons electoral system until after the House of Lords reforms were in place. He said:

It would not be wise to embark on reform to the House of Commons electoral system until we are more certain of the changes that will take place in the other place.
That is not on. We cannot let the shadow of proportional representation hang over this place until the Government have sorted out phase 2 of the House of Lords reform, which could take for ever.
There was no opportunity to vote on 5 November, because the debate took place in Government time on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. We are offering the House that opportunity. Unlike the debate in November, today's debate takes place after three elections held under forms of PR, so we are better able to come to a judgment on how the systems work in practice.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that in the recent Scottish Parliament elections his party won not a single constituency seat, yet it managed to end up with 18 representatives in the new Parliament. Does he think that that is shockingly unfair?

Sir George Young: We do not approach the subject on the basis of what is right for the Tory party. We are interested in what is right for the House of Commons.

Mr. Jim Murphy: rose—

Sir George Young: I should like to make progress. We have already lost some of the time for the debate and there is a 10-minute limit on speeches.
We have the experience of the three recent elections. Previously, many people, including the Prime Minister, have said that they want to suspend judgment until they see how the systems work in practice. The Home Secretary said in our debate in November:
We shall want to see how the various changes bed down and how well the new electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament work."—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1038.]
Quite so.
We have had the elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament. The systems used have common features with the Jenkins proposals of lists, multi-member constituencies, proportionality and two classes of members, which can inform us. Apart from the Greater London elections next year, we have all the evidence that we shall ever have about the voting systems in operation.
Let me start with the European elections and the low turnout. There is no single reason why the turnout for the European elections was low. The institutions of Europe are not popular, the campaigns of two parties were lacklustre and there was an element of voter fatigue. I believe that another reason was the system of voting. People want to vote for a face, not a list. When I knocked on the doors in North-West Hampshire or spoke to people on the phone, I had no candidate to sell. I could call on the record of the sitting Member of the European Parliament. It was an impersonal and rather anonymous process. Voters want to know whom they are voting for or against. Our supporters like to have a product that they can sell on the doorstep. Voters do not like being part of a large region, particularly in the south-east region, which has no regional identity. The voters want to have their


own man or woman representing the patch in which they live and they want to be able to vote them out if they do not like them.

Mr. Richard Burden: We can discuss the European elections if the right hon. Gentleman wants. He seems to be saying that the electoral system was one reason for the drop in turnout. How does he explain the fact that at the 1999 local elections there was approximately a 13 per cent. drop in turnout compared with 1994, and that at the 1999 European elections there was approximately a 13 per cent. drop in turnout compared with 1994? One set of elections was held under a first-past-the-post and the other on a proportional system. Those figures do not add up to an argument that the electoral system caused a drop in turnout.

Sir George Young: There was not such a drop in turnout at the local elections in my constituency. I do not know what figures the hon. Gentleman is quoting, but there was a good turnout for the local elections in Hampshire, which has a hung council. The hon. Gentleman should look at the difference in turnout between the 1994 European elections, when people could vote for one candidate, and this year, when there was a list. That shows a very large drop. I attribute part of but not all the reduction in turnout to a change in the system of voting.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: For the last time, in order to preserve some
proportionality.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his balanced view on interventions. The sitting MEP for Herefordshire, Shropshire and the Wyre forest was a Mr. David Hallam, who achieved a certain popularity in the area. He was arbitrarily dropped down the list to number five by the officials of the Labour party. I was at the count at Wem and many spoilt ballot papers were marked, "We want Hallam".

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend reinforces my point that people want to vote for a face, not a list.
The Government's response is to make it easier to vote. Of course it makes sense to consider, on an all-party basis, how we can make it easier to vote, but that is different from making people want to vote. My guess is that any benefit that may be gained by making it easier to access a voting booth will be more than lost if we introduce a voting system in which the public have less confidence.
We tried to personalise the system by removing the closed list—all credit is due to the other place and indeed to many Labour Members for trying to support the open list. Sadly, the Government insisted on using the Parliament Act 1911 and overruled common sense.
However, even with all their deficiencies, the European elections had one beneficial effect that Jenkins has not. All our MEPs were elected on the same basis. They all went to Europe through the same door. Jenkins preserves all the disbenefits of the list with the added disbenefit of a mixed system of elections and two classes of MP,

with those directly elected through AV producing an even less proportionate result in 1997 than those elected under first past the post.
Others have their own analysis of the results of the European elections, as we have heard. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats did badly not because they fought a lacklustre campaign, but because the Labour party did. One can only sympathise with the Liberal Democrats: if their opponents fight a winning campaign, they lose; if their opponents fight a losing campaign, they still lose. That is an important dilemma for their new leader to address after a campaign that will set the Thames alight.
The Government said that it was all because of contentment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) observed on the night of the count, that has the perverse implication that if people become increasingly content with the Government, turnout should continue to fall until it reaches the ideal of zero.
At the elections in Wales, for example, we were confronted by the absurd spectacle of the Secretary of State for Wales hoping that his party would do well enough to win an overall majority, but not so well that he would not get a top-up seat. In the Welsh Assembly, the Presiding Officer has stopped Assemblymen referring to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the Member for Cardiff, West. The Presiding Officer, a former hon. Member, said that there is not one but five Members for Cardiff, West—the directly elected Member and the four regional Members. So we see the beginning of the end of the direct representational link that is the basis of our membership of the House.
Despite the theory that all Members are equal, the facade is beginning to crack. One Liberal Democrat Assembly Member, representing Brecon and Radnor, insists on calling herself the directly elected Member, with the unspoken inference that it is a better way of being elected than any other.
After an election in New Zealand, the first question one new Member asks another is, "Are you a real MP or are you a top-up?" I am not interested in second-class Members. The strength of this place is that we all got here through the same democratic process. We are all equal.

Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No; I must make progress.
With additional Members, we would in effect have two political currencies in circulation, one of which would be quickly devalued, threatening the very basis on which the House works. There are also the wholly predictable difficulties in Wales for regional Members who want to hold surgeries. Without surgeries it is more difficult to maintain democratic legitimacy—the direct contact with the voter—which is also the basis of our membership here.
We must also consider the example of Scotland where the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), promised at the beginning of election week that if people voted for his party on Thursday, tuition fees would be dead on Friday. By the end of the week, this was


dismissed as mere "election rhetoric". There can be no clearer example of how promises are broken, manifesto commitments Tippexed out and voters betrayed under PR.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: So long as the hon. Gentleman is going to help me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to second-class Members being not directly elected. Does that mean that all those Scottish Members who are not directly elected are second-class Members—nearly all of them Tories?

Sir George Young: That is exactly what a member of the Liberal Democrat party said on election night. He said, "You Tories have only got top-up Members." The fear that I expressed of having two classes of Member is already gaining currency.
The fears expressed in this House last November have come true. We have introduced a system that promotes coalition government at the expense of single-party government. We have seen the need to form those coalitions predicate intensive bargaining between the political parties. Party mandates have become less relevant. Politicians, not voters, choose Governments. The Jenkins system looks not outwards to the voters, but inwards to the party machines. It is interesting to note that the commission found a near-unanimous view of
distrust of any electoral system which increased the power of the party machine.
By contrast, the present system meets the criteria set out by Jenkins better than his own suggestion. It ensures accountability, and voters know who to blame when things go wrong. It encourages open debate and decision making, and facilitates a change of Government and a change of direction.
The Government are now acquiring a reputation for tinkering and dithering: tinkering with things that work perfectly well, and then finding that they do not really know what they are doing; and then dithering as they seek to postpone or avoid awkward decisions. It is an affliction, as we saw this afternoon, to which the Prime Minister is vulnerable.
We have an opportunity today to stop the tinkering and the dithering with our voting system. In our hearts, we know that PR for Westminster is dead. What this motion does is to facilitate a decent burial. I urge all Members to support it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises that different electoral systems may be appropriate for elections to different institutions; commends the Government's commitment to let the final decision on the voting system for the House of Commons be made by the people in a referendum; and welcomes the Government's approach which allows for a full debate in the country on the merits of the Jenkins system before a referendum is held.".

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on his debut in this position, and on a witty and entertaining speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good speech."] It was a good speech—I am perfectly happy to congratulate him on a good speech. I always have been willing to share my compliments.
I congratulate the Opposition on—and thank them for—choosing this subject to debate. In the past seven weeks, we have had the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. Those were the first occasions on which proportional representation was used in national elections in Britain, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to reflect on what has happened.
Let me begin with the Scottish and Welsh elections. As my ministerial colleagues said during the passage of the relevant legislation, our intention in introducing proportional voting systems for those bodies was to ensure a representative outcome, with all the major strands of opinion having a voice in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), said that the Conservative party had an interest in the appropriate system, and not the one that would do the greatest favour for the Conservative party. Had we gone for first past the post in Scotland and Wales, it could have been—I am not saying that it would have been—that one party, which happens to be our party, could have ended up in a relatively impregnable position for a long time. I do not believe that that would have been sensible for democracy, given the demography of those two countries.
I believe that the objective that we set for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly has been achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said—notwithstanding the answer given by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire—it is worth recording that, without the proportional voting system, the Conservative party would have not a single Member of the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption]I am sorry; it would have just a single Member of the Welsh Assembly—and no representation in the Scottish Parliament. Instead, it has nine Assembly Members and 18 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I fancy that, if there were proposals to go back to first past the post in Scotland and Wales for those elections—I shall come on to the elections for the Commons—those Assembly Members and Members of the Scottish Parliament, and their parties, might have something to say.
It is also worth reflecting on some of the objections that were raised to that form of PR for elections to those institutions from the Opposition when the relevant Bills were going through. We were told that it would put people off from voting and that the system was too complicated. The Opposition spokesman in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, warned us that we were adding complication to a "simple democratic system". The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said:
It is a mixed system, to which I object because it will lead to confusion."—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 433.]
Turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections was 58 per cent. and, for the Welsh Assembly, 46 per cent. Those figures could have been higher—I shall say more


about turnouts later—but, to put them into context, on the same day, only 29 per cent. of people in England voted in local council elections using the first-past-the-post system. When twice the percentage of Scots chose to vote using a proportional system, the argument that PR is a disincentive to voting is not easy to sustain. There is also no evidence that the people of Scotland and Wales found the new voting systems difficult to use.
Let me now deal with the European Parliamentary elections on 10 June. As I said during Home Office questions last Monday, I advise the Conservatives to enjoy their moment of triumph, but to beware of false dawns. In 18 years of opposition, the Labour party became only too well aware that such success can be ephemeral.
I shall not dwell on the results, although I should of course be happy to do so. I do not pretend that a turnout of 23 per cent. is anything but very disappointing.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Home Secretary believe that the low turnout had anything to do with the fact that, in the Scottish and Welsh elections, people had two votes for the two different kinds of representatives and in the local elections people had a vote for each representative, but in the European elections people had only one vote and no choice, even though people in the east midlands were electing six Members of the European Parliament?

Mr. Straw: I shall come on to the research work that we intend to do because it is important that we find out the answer systematically and scientifically. We need more evidence before we decide. I am aware of the arguments about the voting system and I shall come on to my old friend Victor d'Hondt in a moment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I cannot wait.

Mr. Straw: I know that my hon. Friend will enjoy my remarks on the subject.
I have not seen any evidence, although that does not mean that there is none available, to suggest that the decline in turnout was caused principally or exclusively by the use of the new system. I am disappointed because the decline in turnout marks a reversal in a gradual, if small, upward trend in turnout for European parliamentary elections, which had increased from 31 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1994. However, it is worth pointing out that, in 10 out of the other 14 member states—all of which have systems of proportional representation that, as far as I am aware, did not change between previous elections and this one—there was a decline in turnout. The decline in the percentage of electors who voted was more severe in Austria, Finland and Germany than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I remind the Home Secretary that the essential justification put forward by the Government for proportional representation was that it might improve the voting figures. Clearly, that has not happened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I call him a professional politician, but why do professional politicians never admit that they are

wrong, even when they are proved to be so? Why cannot they come clean, say they made a mistake, and scrap the new system? Why do they have to say that what happened was because more needed to be done, or because the system needed to be refined? The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect opportunity this afternoon to say, "We got it wrong, we made a mistake, our judgment was faulty, we'll scrap the idea."

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present at 3.30, but one dose of confession of error is enough for one day.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It gets easier each time.

Mr. Straw: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a good member of the Anglican Church, but he says that confession is easier each time. I shall leave that to those of an alternative denomination.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Straw: I want to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and make some progress. The hon. Gentlemen can intervene then.
I have the text of the lengthy and fascinating debates on the merits of the new regional list system. I cannot recall on any occasion being rash enough to say that that system would increase turnout. What I said was that we were involved in creating horses for courses, and that a move to a regional list system would lead to a more representative outcome—and one in which the Labour party almost certainly would get fewer seats than under any other system.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Of course, as I fancy that the hon. Gentleman is going to educate me about what I said.

Mr. Burns: I remind the Home Secretary that, on 25 November 1997, he told the House:
It is difficult to argue that the current electoral system has gripped the electorate. It has not. My guess…is that turnout will improve under the proposed system."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 816–817.]

Mr. Straw: I was wrong. However, I was right in the first part of what I said.
As the House knows, we will conduct a full review of the European Parliamentary elections, and I shall write to the opposition parties shortly about that. As part of that review, we shall include questions in this month's Office of National Statistics omnibus survey—and commission NOP to do research—to discover how the electorate reacted to the new system. That research will produce interesting results, which will be made available to the House.
However, we should avoid hasty judgments about the new system, and about the turnout, as many other things were going on at the time, including the Kosovo war.
Moreover, European institutions had become a lot less popular in the five years since the 1994 elections, which I remember well as I was drafted in as campaign manager for them. That unpopularity was due not least to the resignation of members of the Commission, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned. That has to be accepted as true, regardless of which side of the argument one may be with regard to the euro and other matters.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the Home Secretary say how much the survey will cost, and how many of the 23 per cent. who voted will be surveyed?

Mr. Straw: No, but we shall obviously consult the Opposition about both those questions.
The House needs no reminding of our many long debates to secure the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. I said several times that the European Parliament was a representative body rather than one from which a Government are drawn. That being so, we considered it important that the composition of the UK delegation should be as representative as possible. The number of MEPs representing each of the major parties reflects how well the system worked.
I have immense respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, whom I have known ever since I came to this House. It is always possible to change one's mind; I have certainly done so. It was therefore a tad surprising that the right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that he was once a greatsupporter of proportional representation. In 1977, PR was discussed for the European Parliament elections, and, following an extremely interesting debate, the then Government provided a free vote—a tradition that we have sometimes followed—on whether to have a regional list system, albeit an open-list system, or to use the first-past-the-post system.
I have looked up the voting lists for that debate. Among the Ayes—those who voted for first past the post—were many luminaries of the Conservative party, including the then Leader of the Opposition, now Baroness Thatcher. However, given the current thinking of the Conservative party, the list of Conservative Members who voted for proportional representation reads like a rogue's gallery of Euro-fanatics. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) voted for it. So did the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), and the former Conservative Member, now my hon. Friend, whose constituency I have temporarily forgotten—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leominster."] Thank you. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) voted for PR. The point is that the then hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, now adorning the Front Bench as the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire, also voted for PR.
The right hon. Gentleman strongly supported PR at that time, and the system under debate was identical to the one that we have used, except that the list was open, not closed. He could have offered us some explanation of why he has or has not changed his mind since then.

Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary has been both consistent and right in supporting the Westminster

electoral system, and I hope that he will not sell out at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. Can he confirm that the Jenkins dog's breakfast fails even on its own criterion of proportionality? Has the Home Secretary studied "Making Votes Count", a document published by the democratic audit at the university of Essex, a fine institution from which I myself graduated? It confirms that, at the 1997 election, Labour would have received 68 per cent. of seats on 44 per cent. of the vote, while the Conservatives would have won 17 per cent. of seats on 31.5 per cent. of the vote. Even on proportionality—a ground beloved of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—the Jenkins proposal manifestly fails. Will the Home Secretary say so?

Mr. Straw: Funnily enough, I had flagged the section of the Jenkins report that deals with that point, on page 46 in paragraphs 155 to 157. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues must argue the point, but I think it difficult to argue that the alternative vote top-up system produces a more proportionate result. We can leave aside 1992, when the Conservatives won the election. It is fairer to consider the last election, when they were roundly beaten. What would have happened in that case is that the number of Labour seats would have gone down from 419 to 368, which would have made the result more proportionate. The number of Liberal Democrat seats would have risen from 46 to 89, but the number of Conservative seats would barely have moved. That number is disproportionate to the Conservative share of the vote, as it also is at present, so I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
I am aware that time is short, so I should like to make some progress. When we discussed the European election system, one issue that was raised was that it would lead to a large proportion of spoilt ballot papers. In response to the point made earlier on that matter, I point out that that was not the case. In total, there were about 25,800 spoilt ballot papers on 10 June. That compares to about 32,000 at the previous European parliamentary elections on a slightly larger turnout and to about 90,000 at the 1997 general election, both of which were conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
I will provide a little more information about our favourite, and now famous, Belgian, Mr. Victor d'Hondt, because I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are waiting on my words on that subject. Hon. Members may recall that he lived in the second half of the last century and was professor of law at the university of Ghent and a Christian Democrat. He was one of the leading lights in the Belgian equivalent of the Electoral Reform Society, and wrote a seminal paper in 1882, in which he set out his now famous divisor. He was instrumental in persuading Belgium to introduce a proportional voting system, which it did in 1899—making it the first nation in Europe to do so. That fact is to be added to the quiz on 10 things one knows about Belgium.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Straw: Hang on. I shall give the House some more facts.
I had hoped to be able to provide the House with additional insights about that great man, Mr. d'Hondt, but, despite his achievements, remarkably little more is known


of him. Hon. Members can imagine my distress when I discovered that the Home Office Library does not possess a copy of the "Belgian Dictionary of National Biography".

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is all most entertaining, but we have heard it before. There is one thing that we want to know about the Government: what is their intention with regard to the oft-promised referendum? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are debating—or trying to debate—what should be the system for this House, not what should exist elsewhere.

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, we are debating the motion and the amendment; I am speaking to my amendment. I shall turn to those matters later. [Interruption.] I have already given way several times.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) later.
The position on the electoral system for this House has not changed in any way, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear a week ago, and again today. In the statement that I issued to accompany the publication of the report of the Jenkins commission, I said that the Government's position was that the final decision on whether to adopt the scheme recommended by the commission would be made by the people in a referendum. I believed that to be the right approach and that remains the case.
During our Guy Fawkes debate last year—this picks up the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the difference between the position in June and that in November—I explained that our original intention to hold the referendum before the next election could no longer apply because the particular system that the Jenkins commission had chosen was not one that, in practice, could be in place in time for the next election, as the commission itself realised. That was not something that we could have anticipated when we originally planned for the referendum, not least because the system recommended by Jenkins—whatever its merits—is unique and, as far as I know, is not used anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary has proved conclusively that Mr. Victor d'Hondt is a bit of a joke. Many Conservative Members, as well as many Labour Members, would say that the system introduced by Mr. d'Hondt is also a bit of a joke. The Home Secretary makes it very clear that he does not support proportional representation for this House. Most hon. Members do not support it, so can we not make that decision? Can we not get on with it and move on?

Mr. Straw: That is a difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. I do not happen to share the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe that the issue should be put to the public in a referendum.

Mr. Heald: No, you do not.

Mr. Straw: As a matter of fact, I do. I recommended that course to the Labour party conference in 1995,

when I could have recommended something else. I happen to believe that the issue ought to be settled and that it can be settled only by a referendum—the issue is when.
The impossibility of having the new system in place at the next general election means that there is less urgency about holding a referendum, and no decision has been taken about timing. The Prime Minister said the same thing on 4 November last year, and he reiterated that fact recently. Instead, we would like there to be a full debate on the merits of the Jenkins proposals, and I am grateful to the Opposition for providing the House with a further opportunity to contribute to that process. My views on the subject are well known; there is little dubiety about that. However, as I said when I answered questions on 18 January this year:
There is a case for seeing how the new systems of proportional representation for elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, the European Parliament, fall into place before proceeding with the referendum." —[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 559.]
The right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire said two quite contradictory things in picking me up on that point. He quoted my comments—or used words to that effect—and said that, as we have had the elections, we have also gathered all possible evidence about the operation of the electoral system. However, earlier in his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman made the much more important point that electoral systems are about not just what happens on polling day but what happens subsequently to affect the nature of the institutions. This is not a casuistical point.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether first-class or second-class Members are emerging in Scotland and Wales. The nature of the electoral system plainly has an impact on the institution, so we must wait and see whether we will end up with a two-tier system or whether there will be another, more benign, effect. [Interruption.] I will not give way again, as I am using up the speaking time of Back Benchers.
I must say something about turnout. Turnouts in all categories of elections have been falling for several years. This is not a party political matter but something that should—and I know does—concern us all. The legitimacy of those who are elected is clearly called into question if only a fraction of the electorate have bothered to vote.
As the House will know, following the last general election, we established the working party on electoral procedures—under the leadership of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)—to consider ways to modernise our electoral procedures. The working party includes representatives from Opposition parties. In its interim report, the working party has recommended the introduction of a system of rolling electoral registration, which, among other things, I know will be particularly welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has been pushing this idea for a long time. The working party, whose final report is due shortly, is also recommending the introduction of pilot projects to try out innovations such as electronic and weekend voting and all postal ballots.
I do not want to give the impression that changes such as these are a panacea or that they will stem the decline in turnout overnight. No matter what the electoral arrangements are, people will take the trouble to vote only


if they believe that it is worth their while to do so. Political parties have an important role in galvanising the electorate. Nevertheless, changes that improve our electoral procedures and mean that they reflect more closely the life styles that people enjoy today can, and should, have only a beneficial effect.
When the Government were elected, we made a firm commitment to modernising our constitution and we have taken great strides to achieve that aim in our first two years in office. An important aspect of that has been the acceptance that, when it comes to electoral systems, it is a case of horses for courses. One type does not fit all—and that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman when he actively and avidly supported proportional representation for the European Parliament 20 years ago.

Sir George Young: I was going to let that comment pass, but the Home Secretary raised the issue again. I have never supported proportional representation for Westminster. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that fact?

Mr. Straw: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman said that. However, he poured scorn on proportional representation for the European Parliament. He is entitled to change his views—although he has been given an opportunity to do so and has failed to seize it. I am entitled to point out that, so far as the European Parliament is concerned, we have had no explanation of any change of view, and the right hon. Gentleman knowingly passed through the Lobby in support of proportional representation when the principle first arose in the House in the 1970s.
We must consider the functions of the body being elected and then determine which electoral system best meets the particular needs of the bodies concerned. It is for that reason that we have introduced proportional voting systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. There can be little argument with the proposition that our objective of producing more representative outcomes for those institutions has been achieved.
Debates about electoral systems have, quite rightly, been taking place in this House for more than a century—and I dare say they will continue for many years to come. I am grateful to the Opposition for this opportunity to put our position on the record and I look forward to the debate.

Mr. John MacGregor: There is one thing on which all of us can agree in this debate: no system is perfect, so we are arguing about a system whose advantages outweigh its disadvantages and rejecting systems whose disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
I can be brief, because my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an admirable and cogent speech and covered many of the issues that I would wish to have covered. It is clear to me, particularly in the light of our experience of the European Parliament election, that, compared with all others, first past the post is a far better system for elections to the Westminster Parliament.
The arguments are no longer theoretical, as they were during the debate on 5 November 1998. We have seen proportional representation, in various forms, operating in practice, and we can see that our worst fears and strongest criticisms, which we made in that debate and elsewhere, are being confirmed in practice. I note that the Home Secretary talked about horses for courses. We are talking about the system of election to the Westminster Parliament but, in doing so, it is legitimate to draw on experience learned from the systems for elections to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.
I want to quote once, and only once, from the Jenkins report. Referring to first past the post, it suggested that the turnout at elections does not represent
a ringing endorsement of the present system".
It is clear from the European elections that, far from the turnout being a ringing endorsement of the chosen system, it is a ringing rejection of proportional representation.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I ought not to give way because of the time factor and the 10-minute limit. Many Members on both sides of the House want to speak.
I want to discuss the great virtues of the first-past-the-post system because they were not touched on at all—inevitably, because of the way in which the terms of reference were drawn up—by the Jenkins commission, and they probably have not featured strongly enough in the debate so far. First, I emphasise the importance of the direct constituency link, which is one of the great virtues of the British system. The experience of all of us who have been Members of the House for some time is that the longer we are Members, the more we understand the virtues of that direct constituency link. It brings to Members of Parliament awareness of a range of issues, and awareness of what people in the country feel, so we are much better informed than others.
During the many years in which I was negotiating on behalf of this country at various European Councils of Ministers—particularly in the Agriculture Council, where we waited, frequently late at night, as the presidency went round all the individual Ministers to reach some consensus—there were many hours in which Ministers had nothing to do. I dictated constituency correspondence into my tape machine. I was often away for a week at a time, and I knew that I would not catch up when I got back, so I dealt with correspondence then.
The interesting point was that many colleagues came to ask me what I was doing. I explained that I was dealing with a range of issues that affected my constituents. They said, "We don't have to worry about any of that because we have the proportional representation system." I asked how often they went to their constituencies and how many meetings they addressed. Their approach is vastly different from ours. I have always thought that the constituency link is one of the greatest virtues of the British system, but we will lose that entirely if we use for Westminster elections the system that we use for the European Parliament.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I fear I cannot, because of the time constraint.
That point was tellingly made recently in a leader in The Daily Telegraph, which said that meaningful representation in a democracy can be established only by the direct link between the Member and his constituents. I believe that that is right, and we would lose that link at our peril.
Secondly, electoral systems other than first past the post involve the danger of increasing the power of the party at the centre. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has quoted the Jenkins report and, as it went round the country, the commission discovered near-unanimous distrust of any electoral system that increases the power of the party machines.

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: On the Jenkins report?

Mr. Ross: No, on the increase of the power of the party at the centre.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have conversations going on in that way. If the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) wants to speak, he should make a proper intervention.

Mr. MacGregor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have allowed an intervention in that way.
The systems that we have seen—for example, in the European Parliament elections—increase the power of the party at the centre. The system that the Labour party has chosen has greatly increased its power over who stands as candidates in elections. We have therefore moved to a position in which MEPs at the top of the list can remain at the top of the list provided that they keep their noses clean with the party bosses at the centre. That means that many of them will pay much less attention to what their constituents say. Given the size of their constituencies, it is almost impossible for them to pay attention to their constituents. The East Anglia constituency, for example, covers 56 parliamentary constituencies.
The other great virtue of first past the post is that it usually gives a clear outcome in the form of a Government committed to their manifesto. Having been in this House for 25 years, and the more I study other systems and meet representatives from other Parliaments, I feel passionately that the constituency link that first past the post provides is one of our great assets and we should not reject it.
There are numerous other criticisms of proportional representation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned them, so I need not elaborate. For example, a party that comes fourth in the table of electoral success has a key stake in the Government. Proportional representation also produces two classes of Members of Parliament, about which we shall hear more and more in the Scottish Parliament. We do not want that in Westminster.
The Jenkins report shows that a step needs to be taken to make our system fairer. It demonstrates that the effect of the current boundaries is such that equality of votes between the two main parties, Conservative and Labour, at the last election would still have produced a Labour

majority of 76. The Conservatives would have had to have a lead of 6.5 per cent. to get an equal number of seats. That cannot be a fair way of handling first past the post.
There is clearly a big bias in the current system. The boundary commission should be asked urgently to look at the boundaries again, with a view to eliminating that bias. I do not expect the present Government to do that. We all remember how Mr. Callaghan, when he was Home Secretary, gerrymandered the Greater London council elections. Nevertheless, the Conservative party should do it, because it is the only unfairness in the operation of our first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Linton: The reason for that bias is entirely to do with tactical voting. It has nothing to do with how the boundaries are drawn.

Mr. MacGregor: The Jenkins commission accepted that analysis, and made it clear that it thought that there was a bias in the system. Therefore I believe that the boundary commission should look at the matter.
As we said in last year's debate, the Jenkins report produced the worst of all worlds. It not only produced a system that has never been tried anywhere else but advocated focusing mainly on the alternative voting system, despite the fact that, in a chapter on that system, it outlined all the defects. In order to overcome those, it also produced a topping-up system, which presents a number of other dangers and difficulties. It is clear from the criticisms that have been made that that is not an attractive alternative; yet the Jenkins commission rejected all the other alternatives and produced cogent arguments for doing so.
First past the post operates in 62 countries and covers half the world's electorates. It has been tried and tested in the United Kingdom. We should not give up the huge virtues of the constituency link in the British system. The Prime Minister said today that he would listen to the debate. It is clear from the debate so far that there is no contest. We should keep first past the post for Westminster and make that clear now. We should not engage in a referendum, which, given the complexities of the Jenkins proposals, would simply confuse and probably lead to a low turnout.
I strongly advocate that the Government should make their position clear now. The Conservative party should commit itself to a change in the voting system for the European Parliament, because it is clear from the low turnout that the current voting system contributed a lot to that outcome. In doing so, we should retain as many as possible of the elements that we had before in the European elections. I hope that we shall be able to do that, but, above all, I want to say this to the Government. I think that the argument is now clear, and that the Home Secretary agrees with much of it. I hope that he will follow that agreement with action.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I rise with some trepidation, as I am sure is customary among Members making maiden speeches. There is, however, nothing customary in what I wish to say about my predecessor, Derek Fatchett. His tragic death just six weeks ago left us all the poorer. His family lost a much-loved husband and father; the House lost a fine parliamentarian;


the Government lost a first-class Foreign Office Minister; the trade union movement lost a committed advocate of the rights of working people; and, above all, the people of Leeds, Central lost a friend as well as a Member of Parliament.
Derek served his constituents with passion and with distinction. People liked him as well as respected him. That is why his passing is still deeply felt by many, and why he is and will be greatly missed by all who knew him. As the new Member, I am proud to serve the constituency that he served.
Over the years, the strength of the city of Leeds and the source of its prosperity have been both its diversity and its capacity to change with the times. That diversity is reflected in the constituency. Starting from the north, it covers two universities and two hospitals, "Jimmy's" and the Leeds general infirmary. It takes in the West Yorkshire playhouse. It then runs down across a thriving city centre, and on to a large area of manufacturing—to Holbeck, Hunslet and Beeston, which welcomed the first Kosovar refugees to this country. From Cottingley in the west to Richmond Hill in the east along the York road, each part is a unique community with its own characteristics and traditions. Let me add that the warmth of its people is matched only by their plain speaking.
The constituency contains two other great institutions: the Hunslet Hawks rugby league club, in its splendid stadium in south Leeds, and, of course, Leeds United football club at Elland Road. I shall always have a special affection for Elland Road, because that is where my selection conference took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) can readily testify, as he was present, it was a colourful scene that night as the votes were counted. The ballot box was pitch black. The voting slips piled on the table were a very pale shade of pink—no political significance whatever should be read into that! The faces of the candidates were, to put it mildly, a little grey. But, resplendent in their traditional white, gazing down at us from their picture frames on the wall, were those two great heroes of Leeds United teams gone by, Gordon Strachan and Johnny Giles. I knew at that moment that there was something special about the constituency, and so it has proved.
There is, however, something else about Leeds, Central, which is why I wanted to contribute briefly to this debate. It contains some of the poorest parts of Leeds, and some of the most deprived communities. It has the highest unemployment in the city. For many of the people who live there, social exclusion is not a theory, but their life experience. These are people whose faith in the capacity of the democratic system to produce real and lasting improvement is tested daily by crime, poor housing and social decay.
Perhaps not surprisingly in view of that, Leeds, Central had one of the lowest turnouts in the country at the last general election: only 55 per cent. Just a fortnight ago, only 20 per cent. of the electorate voted in the by-election, under the first-past-the-post system, and in the European elections, under proportional representation. Such a low turnout must be a matter of concern to all of us; but perhaps there is a deeper message than one just about electoral systems. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment today on the relative merits of those systems, let alone the complexities of the d'Hondt system.

I do not even understand the Lewis-Duckworth rule when it comes to rain delay in one-day cricket. However, I believe that the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency is very important.
While there are steps that can and should be taken to make voting easier, I believe that the deeper message is this. The true test of our democratic system—and of the House, in the eyes of those who put us here—is whether we can demonstrate in practice to people in a constituency such as Leeds, Central that they can use this place to make a difference to their own lives.
As the community police officer for Lincoln Green said to me last Friday, when I was talking to him about the area which he knows very well and cares about so passionately:
People are looking for a sign that things will get better.
That statement summarises why the ballot box has to be an instrument of hope as well as of democracy, a means of economic and political progress, and a way out of poverty and despair.
It was that instrument of hope that, at the end of the second world war, created the national health service, and, under the current Government, created the minimum wage and the new deal, of which we are justly proud. I believe that it is that instrument of hope that remains our best chance of meeting the challenges of the new century that will shortly dawn.
Leeds, Central is special, if not unique, in one other respect: the potential of the people who live there to find a voice for themselves. As I travelled round the constituency during the by-election, time and again, I was impressed by the people I met who were not waiting for us to do something, but were trying to do something for themselves.
At the Holbeck community forum, for example, which I visited, 40 people turned out on a Wednesday evening simply to talk about how they could improve the community in which they live. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I visited a supported housing scheme on a tenant-managed housing estate that was providing supported living—and advice, help and a shoulder to cry on—to young people who could not, for whatever reason, continue to live with their own families. The elderly care project based in the Woodhouse Road community centre, which has raised 80 per cent. of its own funds, is now providing a hot breakfast every day for those in the community who might not otherwise get a square meal.
All those people have very high expectations of us, and rightly so: there is much more that we need to do. But those examples—and there are many others—give me hope, because they are a living demonstration that, where a community finds a voice for itself, it is in a much stronger position to tackle the problems about which it knows most. I also believe that, when that happens, our job as Members of Parliament is made that much easier, because we can then add our voice to theirs. If, by doing that, we can together make a difference, we shall be able to demonstrate not only that the House is the servant of those who elect us but that it is something worth voting for.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a very real privilege and pleasure to have the opportunity to follow the new hon. Member


for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) and to congratulate him, very sincerely, on a most distinguished beginning in the House. He spoke with feeling, which was shared by all hon. Members, of his predecessor and of the tragic circumstances that led to his by-election. His sentiments on that were widely shared.
The hon. Gentleman's sympathetic description of the nature of his constituency and its deprivation, and his equally engaging understanding of the sense of democratic frustration of those who live hopelessly in deprivation, bids fair for the resolution of their problem and was most apposite to today's debate. Although he did not choose to engage in the arcane issues of voting systems, none the less, he recognised in his speech how important is our democratic renewal. He also, helpfully and feelingly, introduced to the debate an element of passion that I think had been lacking.
In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an occasional speech that will leave very little in the mind afterwards, and certainly no sense of the issue being one of great importance to the United Kingdom. It was an occasional speech that followed the events of the elections of the past month. For that reason, I very much welcomed it, and think that the official Opposition were entirely right to choose proportional representation as the subject of today's debate.
The sinuosity of the right hon. Gentleman's position on European electoral systems has been noted, and will certainly colour our view of how he approaches those issues in the future. His failure to respond to the challenge of the Home Secretary was evident and rather surprising for one who has a reputation for being straightforward. But it is clear that this debate is important, and that we should be considering the issue of electoral systems now.
I welcome the opportunity of looking rather differently upon the experiences of past elections. Once again, however, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) has intervened, to speak of his view based on 25 years' experience of this place. So we paid some attention to that. He hymned the merits of the first-past-the-post system, on the ground that it produces certain results. He has been in the House long enough to know that that is not true.
It may be beyond the memory of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that the result of 1964 general election was far from decisive. It is certainly beyond his personal recollection that the 1951 result was far from decisive, and that a party with a minority of votes—his own, the Conservative party—formed the Government. It is certainly not beyond his recollection that the result of the general election held in the spring of 1974 was inconclusive. It seems to me that certainty of outturn is not a characteristic of the first-past-the-post system. It is also not true that it fairly reflects the opinion of the people.
Time and again, we have had general election results in which minority votes have produced a substantial majority in this place for the governing party. That is true of the current Government, as it has been true of Conservative Governments led by Mrs. Thatcher. Such an inequitable outturn is not advantageous to the good government of the country—a point that has been forcefully made, on a number of occasions, certainly to his cost, by Lord Pym, when he also represented an East Anglian constituency.
Large majorities do not necessarily lead to wise government. All too often, however, they are a haphazard consequence of the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: This is an extremely short debate, and, although I am not caught by the 10-minutes rule, I do not propose giving way frequently. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of his discussions in recent years with the Home Secretary, could the right hon. Gentleman explain something that the Home Secretary said in his speech? He said that we could not have a referendum on the substance of the Jenkins report in this Parliament, as the matter is too complicated and a change could not be introduced by the next general election. However, surely the same arguments would hold true in the next Parliament. If the Government were serious about Jenkins, surely the referendum should be held in this Parliament, should it not? I did not understand the Home Secretary's comment.

Mr. Maclennan: I have every reason to follow the Home Secretary's comments on the matter with the very closest attention, and do not recognise in what the hon. Gentleman said the words of the Home Secretary. My understanding of what the Home Secretary was saying was that—since the Jenkins report had produced a scheme for election to the House that could not be given effect, as it required boundary commission changes that could not be introduced within the time available—there was an argument for postponing the referendum to a date closer to when any change consequent on the referendum might be anticipated. It is an argument that I should like to deal with. It is an argument that certainly must have been recognised as a possibility by those of us who discussed holding a referendum. The Prime Minister said in November in the House and on other occasions that it has always been envisaged that the referendum would be held in this Parliament. That remains the position. It is a clear option and to my mind a desirable option. I hope that it is an option with which the Government will decide to proceed.

Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman explains how undemocratic it is that a Government can be formed with a minority of the votes. Would he care to comment on the situation in Scotland after the elections to the Scottish Parliament? The Liberal party, which received a derisory vote, is now a part of government. Can he explain the democracy and fairness in all that?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall turn to Scotland, but if I were the hon. Gentleman I would not deride 14 per cent. of the electorate. It is not derisory to be supported by so many people as have supported the Liberal Democrats both in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. It was


not derisory when the Liberal Democrats took control of Sheffield from the Labour party. Those who deride may have to stand back and cheer.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would not give way to any more interventions, but since it is the hon. Gentleman, this will be positively the last time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: One man's derision is another man's boast, but does the right hon. Gentleman really think that 14 per cent. justifies a place at the Cabinet table? Is that what he is on about?

Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would come to Scotland. First, I wish to deal with the European Parliament elections and say how auspicious I believe the choice of date for the debate is. It is auspicious because we have had the first post-election opinion poll about the merits of a proportional system of election for this House. It was published today by ITN for a programme called "Powerhouse". It shows that 70 per cent. of the British electorate favour a proportional system for election to this House. It also shows—this is important—that 68 per cent. of the British public support a proportional system of election for local government. I hope that that indicates that extrapolation of the results of the European elections as a commentary on the system of election is wholly unjustified.
Whatever the European election was about, it was most certainly not about a system of election. To be fair to him, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire did not suggest that it was, although he suggested that it was perhaps a factor.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. John Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I have said that I will not give way again. I think that that now might be taken as read.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire properly considered that there might be a number of explanations and suggested what some of them might be. I welcome the Home Secretary's intention to conduct an analysis in depth of what people's thinking was, and I look forward to participating in the discussions that he has offered to Opposition parties about appropriate questions to put to the public on these matters. We ought to be properly informed about these things. We ought not to join in the hullabaloo of The Daily Mail and other comparable tabloid newspapers, which have treated the Conservatives' result as a major victory. It is hard to interpret the ability to turn out approximately 10 per cent. of the electors in support of a proposition as a major victory. If the Conservative party bases any long-standing hope on that electoral result, it is likely to be greatly disappointed.

Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I have said that I will not give way again.
The European election was an indictment of politicians of all political parties. It was no triumph for anyone. It is true that the Conservative party managed more successfully than others to motivate a tiny minority of the electors to go out in support of it. It has to be said that the other parties failed to motivate the massive majority to turn out at all. That is not something from which even the Conservative party should take any great comfort.
The conduct of the European Parliament election was very far from a rising call to support any European cause. Many of us will learn lessons from that to be applied in the future.
The result of the Scottish election was different in terms of turnout.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman is simply trying to harass me, I would ask him to refrain, because I am not about to be intimidated by him. The Scottish election had a relatively good turnout—some 61 per cent. The effect of holding two elections on the same day was interesting, for it resulted in a much higher turnout for the local government elections in Scotland than we have seen in the past. I commend to the Home Secretary the possibility of holding elections on a super Saturday, as is done in other countries, to ensure that those whom we would wish to vote have the opportunity and incentive to do so and have a real sense of democratic occasion.
I shall now deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) about the consequences of the election in Scotland. I believe that the Labour party scored some 39 per cent. of the vote. Under the old system, it would undoubtedly have enjoyed a substantial majority of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that, with that substantial majority, the Executive would have enjoyed anything like the legitimacy of the Government now in place in Scotland, who enjoy the support of about 50 per cent. of the electorate.
There has been a pooling of policies as a consequence of the agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. A number of items of policy, including 500 extra teachers and an extra £8,000 per school for books and improvements have been adopted by the Executive—

Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Maclennan: —even though those policies were not part of the Labour party's undertaking when it sought election. A programme for Scotland will be implemented based on the best thinking of the two participants in government. It will result in a continuing dialogue about the unfinished agenda, for what has been agreed is not final. It will be subject to review, addition and, we hope, improvement.

Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I shall not, and I resent the hon. Lady twice trying to intervene when she has been told clearly that she is wasting other Members' time.
We are seeing the beginning of a national campaign which will be informed by the experience of the elections that have taken place around the country. It is encouraging that the first positive national opinion poll shows the first reaction of the public to be supportive of proportional representation. It is also encouraging that the McIntosh committee set up in Scotland to look at local government has come out strongly in favour of PR for local government elections. There is no doubt, as it is part of the agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Executive, that PR will be introduced in Scotland for local government. We shall see that ripple throughout the United Kingdom, as a fairer and more sensible way to elect our Government.
By this time next year, many people in this country—the Scots, the Welsh and those living in London—will have had an opportunity to vote twice under proportional systems. They will have acquired a degree of familiarity with its benefits and disbenefits, which will have a considerable impact on any campaign that we might anticipate.
The Conservatives talk about the national interest being served by the present system. I do not think that the national interest is served by the Conservative party being totally excluded from contributing to our debates on Scottish matters in the House. I do not think that it serves the national interest for the Scottish Parliament to be lacking Scottish Conservative Members and voices. I do not think it contributes to the national interest that, in Wales, there would have been only the one Conservative voice from Monmouth. The Conservative party should look beyond Offa's dyke and Hadrian's wall and discuss whether its intransigent little England stance against proportional representation makes any sense in the modern United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Conservative party's perspective is too narrow and its focus too withdrawn into the south-east of England. The time has come for it to use its period of opposition wisely and to rethink its position on some of the constitutional matters on which, so far, regrettably, it has made little serious contribution.

Mr. Richard Burden: I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) about my new hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). It was a fine maiden speech and he paid tribute to our late honourable Friend, Derek Fatchett—I want to emphasise the word "friend" as he was a friend to so many of us. He spoke movingly about his constituency and made some points which were relevant to the debate.
We must push Conservative Members a little further on this. Perhaps they will address my comments in their reply to the debate because, sadly, I will not be able to take interventions. They have made it clear that they do not support, as a preference, giving the British people a say on the voting system used to elect Members to this place. It is important to record that because it says something about their views on democratic issues.
I am rather hazy about other points that they are making. They have adopted a scattergun approach to different sorts of electoral system. They have said that

they are against regional lists and against the systems used in Scotland and Wales. They appear to be saying that any proportional system is, by definition, wrong. If that is what they are saying—I see some of them nodding their heads—they are saying that first past the post is the only system worth considering. It is an honourable position, but I wonder why they do not use that system to elect their own leader. They may believe that their system has produced the wrong result for them.
Any serious discussion of this issue leads us to the conclusion that we cannot be absolutist about electoral systems. No electoral system is perfect for all situations and all have their plus and minus points. As parliamentarians, we should all be concerned about what is happening to turnouts and the fact that many people seem to feel disconnected from politicians, politics and the political process. I am a supporter of electoral reform, but I would not claim that electoral reform alone will change that. In the European elections, we were able to achieve a result which was fairer and which more accurately reflected people's votes, but it did not stop the haemorrhaging of votes that had already started to occur under the first-past-the-post system in some elections.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden: I have already said that I will not give way.
Unless people feel that political institutions are relevant to them, they will not vote. That is why the working party is so important in making it easier and more attractive for people to vote. It is also why we need to bring political institutions closer to the people. It is why devolution and decentralisation are as relevant to England as to Scotland and Wales.
We need to recognise that voting in elections is only one way, albeit an important one, in which people engage with the political process. That is where the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central were so right. Involvement in one's community or a community organisation is a political activity. It may not be party political, but it is political. As well as encouraging people to engage in the political process in which we are involved, as politicians, we need to spend more time examining our way of operating and engage more in the involvement of people in our communities. We need a political culture to help foster that and that is where the voting system is relevant.
I believe that the Jenkins system is a significant step forward. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spent more time attacking the European system, which is not under debate, than the Jenkins system. The Jenkins system is not proportional representation in any pure form. It would address the concern—it is right to address it—about the need for a link between MP and constituency. Every voter in every seat in this country would be able to vote for their constituency Member of Parliament. The difference would be that, if somebody came here claiming to represent the voters in their constituency, they should have an obligation to have achieved at least 50 per cent. of the vote in that constituency. Also, it would allow for effective government, which has been mentioned today and is important.
It is estimated that in 1997 and 1983, when clear preferences were expressed by the electorate—although not technical majorities—the Jenkins system would have


produced majority government. It would, however, remove the electoral fig leaf provided by the first-past-the-post system which allows political parties to claim virtual monopoly power on the basis of no significantly greater support than other parties. That would mean that in 1979 and 1992 we would probably not have had majority government in this country.
I believe that a greater reflection of voters' preferences would be good for democracy. In conjunction with our reforms on devolution, the constitutional agenda and the second Chamber, it would help effective government and allow this place to act as a legislature far more than it has been able to do recently.
The Jenkins system would be a boon to democracy in that, for the first time, every vote in every seat would count.

Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes.
At present, in some parts of the country, some votes have no influence on the overall election result. Under the Jenkins proposal—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) must contain himself. I will not have a continuous sedentary commentary from the Back Benches.

Mr. Burden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings may be able to catch your eye later.
The dynamics of our current electoral system force political parties to target their efforts on about 100 or so marginal seats. I am pleased that in the previous election the Labour party won more seats than that, but it does not alter the fact that the dynamics of our system force attention on those seats that make the difference between winning and losing. We need an end to the electoral deserts that we have seen all too often in elections in this country and must ensure that every vote in every seat counts. I believe that the Jenkins system will do that.
It is clear that Conservative Members do not support a referendum on electoral reform. I ask them to think about that. It is absolutely right for us in the House to debate these issues, but we are not the people who should make the final decision on how we are elected or the political system of the country. The people of this country should have the right to decide. Sure, we can advise and campaign, but it should be their choice.
I hope that Conservative Members will participate in the debate not only in the House but in the country. When we have ensured that the people engage in a debate about not only electoral systems but the kind of democracy that they want, I hope that we will hold a referendum. I hope that it will support the Jenkins system, but, whichever way it goes, the fact that we will have had the debate will be good for democracy, and that will be good for hon. Members of all parties.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on a first-class maiden speech. It was nice to see his father's face shining with pride. Following in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not be easy, as he is regarded throughout the House as a first-class parliamentarian. We look forward to his son making an equal contribution in the fullness of time. It was interesting to note that both father and son agree on first past the post. I hope, for the future of the latter's ministerial career, that their accord does not continue.
It is Conservative Members' aim to persuade the Government to drop their commitment to holding a referendum on proportional representation. We believe that we already have the right system for election to the House and that to change it in any way would be damaging. I take issue with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), because the experience in other countries is that people vote in referendums—and by-elections—not necessarily on the basis of the issue at hand but on the basis of their approval or disapproval of the Government. That is another reason why Conservative Members are wary of holding a referendum on this vital issue.
To change the system of election to the House would be to change fundamentally the way in which the British people are governed.

Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Lady agree that an electoral system that has twice given the party that won the lesser number of votes victory in a general election needs to be changed?

Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady's point refers to a blip in history. We have an effective, tried and tested system of democracy that has delivered the most important thing for the British people: peace in our country, effective government and a tolerant and civilised society. First past the post has been an important ingredient in that process, from which we can all take great heart.
We fear that the Government's agenda has been to tinker with our constitutional arrangements in a way that has caused a great deal of upset. The devolution debate is over for Scotland and Wales but certainly not for England. When I suggested a few weeks ago that there was great anxiety in my constituency about the West Lothian question and the way in which the Government are ignoring it, my comments were much derided, but the questions are still to be answered. The Government have tinkered with the system without fully thinking through the final outcome for our constitution.
Proportional representation is not a relevant way forward. There is anxiety among Scottish Members of Parliament who are getting into turf wars with Members of the Scottish Parliament about how properly to serve their constituents. That cannot be good for democracy. The west midlands now has eight Members of the European Parliament and nobody really feels that they represent one specific place. The west midlands is an enormous area.
I spoke to the managing director of a Stoke pottery who said that the great pity of the new arrangements for MEPs is that he no longer feels that there is someone


representing his area to whom he can take his concerns about European regulations that affect his industry owing to the fact that Europe has competence in the United Kingdom over trade and industrial matters. That highlights the problem of having no clear link between the people and their parliamentary representative.
I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and I enjoy taking my constituents around the House. We are privileged to work in a fabulous and historic building. When we get to Central Lobby, I like to explain the heart of our democratic system: the fact that all 659 of us represent a piece of turf in the United Kingdom in a very direct way, so that anyone from Bromsgrove or anywhere else in the country can come to the House, hand in their green card—I explain that it is as well to remind us that they are coming—and speak to someone who makes laws on their behalf and is obliged to listen to their point of view. That is fundamental to the confidence that the people have in the way in which they are governed, and we throw that aside at our peril.
We can see from the experience of other countries how dangerous it is to throw that principle aside. I had the pleasure of visiting New Zealand last year and heard at first hand what a disaster the PR system had been there. New Zealand faced many of the same problems as the United Kingdom in the past 20 years, but it used to have a first-past-the-post system that could deliver a Government who were capable of dealing with those problems. It now has a PR system under which no agreement can be reached on anything. I fear for the economic future of New Zealand if tough decisions cannot be taken because of the horse-trading that has to ensue before any lowest common denominator decision can be taken. That is a fundamental point.
I shall end my remarks with an appeal to the Minister to make a decision on this important matter. The Opposition would prefer it if the Government dropped the idea of a referendum. It is vital that we have a democratic system under which the people decide the outcome of a general election. We had mini PR systems in Scotland and Wales. After the parliamentary elections in Scotland, it was not clear who would govern in the Scottish Parliament. There was horse-trading with the Liberal Democrats, who disgracefully reneged on the pledge they made before the election to axe the student loans scheme, so the Scottish people did not get the outcome that they wanted.
It is clear why it would be bad news to go down this PR route. It is important that the British people know that it is they who are in charge of the outcome of a general election, not politicians in smoke-filled rooms after it has taken place.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I join colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming my new hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), whose confidence and eloquence are a taste of things to come. I am sure that he will contribute to many of our debates.
I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. Prior to the 1997 general election, many people said that the Labour party's commitment to constitutional and democratic reform would be dropped were Labour to form a majority Government. In the past two years, we have

remained absolutely true to the commitments that we made to renew our democracy. The commitment in our manifesto to hold a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons was first made by the late leader of the Labour party, John Smith, and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister. It was the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats at the general election.
It is right that the decision on an issue as fundamental as how we elect the main Chamber of our Parliament should rest with the people. I hope that this debate will be held not just in this Chamber but in the country so that the people can participate. I welcome the Government's amendment, which reaffirms that policy.
We are holding the debate in the light of the recent experience in Scotland and Wales and in the European elections. The low turnout in the European elections was a grave disappointment. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary predicting that the turnout would rise. I was quaking slightly in my shoes, because I thought that he might quote me as I also predicted that. I still believe that there would be greater participation if we reformed our voting system, but I accept that that did not happen in the elections two weeks ago. However, I do not accept the argument that the voting system was the main or even a significant factor in the low turnout. We have something much more fundamental to deal with than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central made that clear.
There is a disconnection between people and politics in this country, which was reflected in the poor turnout not only in the European elections but in the by-election in Leeds, Central and the local government elections, which were held under the first-past-the-post system.

Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman have any sympathy for the voter in my constituency who wrote right across the top of his ballot paper for the European elections last week, "Give me back my vote"? He bothered to go to the polling station, but his vote did not count because he spoiled the ballot paper. He believes that power was taken away from voters and given to politicians.

Mr. Twigg: I have sympathy for that voter's position, but the Home Secretary made it clear that fewer people spoiled their ballot papers in the European elections under the new proportional voting system than under the system of five years ago. I shall return to that point.
During the passage of the legislation introducing the new system for European elections, which my right hon. Friend reaffirmed, the Government gave a commitment to review the closed list voting system. I was one of a number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who made it clear that, although we supported the introduction of proportional representation and regarded such reform as a welcome advance, we would have preferred a different voting system that enabled the hon. Lady's constituent to vote for an individual.
I hope that when the Government conduct their review they will consider the option of an open list voting system, as is used in some other European Union countries. That would retain the positive feature of our new PR system—that votes and seats broadly match—but would also enable people to choose between individuals as well as between parties. I hope that that point of view will win support in all parties.
The debate on reform of the House is only just beginning. The Labour party is conducting a major internal consultation on the issue, and I hope that we will have a high level of participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made the point that the Jenkins system is not a pure proportional representation system. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues have come up with a system that combines what is best about the British system, but changes what is bad. If a party has a clear lead—as Labour had in 1997 and the Conservatives had in 1983—it will still be able to form a majority Government, albeit with a smaller majority that more accurately reflects how votes were cast. That sensible reform will make for more effective government. It will also give more power and more choice to the voter, not more power to the parties.
The closed list experience does not have much to teach us about the Jenkins proposals. Lord Jenkins proposes constituencies for the vast bulk of Members, combined with small open lists for the top-up, so that we get around the problems that hon. Members have identified with the closed list system.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as both of us survived the vagaries of a PR system in a previous career. Has he reflected on the fact that, in Scotland, the Labour party came first in the regional vote, but won no seats in seven out of the eight regional constituencies. In those regional constituencies, a Labour voter wasted his vote by voting for the Labour party. We must get beyond a system that allows people to waste their votes.

Mr. Twigg: The number of wasted votes in the Scottish, Welsh and European elections was massively smaller than under the first-past-the-post system. The purpose of the second vote in the Scottish system is to compensate for the disproportionate outcome in the first vote. The Labour party did not win seats in the regions in Scotland under the top-up because it had already done well in the constituencies. Had we had first past the post in the Scottish elections, the Labour party would have won almost 80 per cent. of the seats with 39 per cent. of the vote. That cannot be justified in democratic terms.
The Scottish Constitutional Convention, which brought together people from different parties and from the wider civic society in Scotland, concluded that it wanted a Scottish Parliament that reflected the diversity of opinion in Scotland. The anomaly to which my hon. Friend referred is a small price to pay for an Assembly or Parliament that more fully reflects the balance of opinion in Scotland.

Ms King: Does not that show that we support PR on a point of principle? We want Parliament to reflect the population, but perhaps hon. Members should consider the small number of women in the Chamber. PR is the only way that we will have a representative democracy.

Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is right. One of the most positive features of the elections in Scotland and Wales was the high representation of women achieved with PR systems. I believe that 40 per cent. of the Members

of the Scottish Parliament and 37 per cent. of the Members of the Welsh Assembly are women. There are lessons for all of us in that.
Labour can take pride in the fact that we are pursuing the debate from a position of strength after an election in 1997 in which we secured two thirds of the seats in this House on the basis of 44 per cent. of the vote. Rather than turning our backs on the issue, we are proceeding with the debate and giving the people the opportunity to decide for themselves in a referendum. Lord Jenkins points out in his report that political parties' interest in electoral reform has tended to be inversely related to their ability to do anything about it. The Government have decided to let the people decide even though they are the main beneficiaries of the current system.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Twigg: I have given way several times and I think that I have about a minute left, so I should like to draw my remarks to a close.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out that this is an issue of principle. Proportional representation is often portrayed as involving horse-trading and deals behind closed doors. It is not about that. We want to confront the fact that people in this country are cynical about politics, democracy and politicians. We are all challenged to take that issue seriously. I do not pretend that voting reform for this place is a magic wand or a panacea that will solve all our problems, but we should recognise that our current method of doing things is not delivering the representative Parliament and Government that we all want. It is important to enable people to take part in the debate. We should not close the door on the debate by dropping our commitment to a referendum. We should proceed with the debate and have the referendum to enable the people to decide.

Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his excellent and fluent maiden speech. I envy the way in which he carried out what many of us considered to be a parliamentary nightmare with such seeming ease and fluency.
Whatever anyone's views on the current electoral system for this House, it has undeniably given us stable government over the past century. How would proportional representation alter the workings of our constitution, and what would be the consequences for the Cabinet system and for this House? The answers depend on the specific qualities of the electoral system and on the traditions and political culture of this country. A system of proportional representation rather than first past the post would cause complex and far-reaching upheavals to our constitution and to this House.
Under a system that reflected the relative strengths of the parties, no single party would receive an overall majority. One of the major parties—almost certainly the largest party—would look for a partner to provide a majority in the Commons. However, that would lead to a pig-in-a-poke situation. Unlike Germany and Ireland, where parties usually say before a general election who they will support after the election, we have a tradition of


the Liberals, the SDP alliance and the Liberal Democrats not telling the country in advance what they might do in the event of a hung Parliament. As a consequence, there would be great uncertainty immediately after a general election.
We are all used to a swift transition of Government after a general election. In some ways, the transition is brutally swift. The alternative under PR would be delay, wrangling, haggling and deals in dark corners. We should not follow the example of other countries. In 1996 in New Zealand, it took more than two months to form a Government; in 1993–94 in Ireland, it took 77 days; it took 86 days in Austria in 1996; 126 days in Italy in 1979; 148 days in Belgium in 1988; and 218 days in Holland in 1977. I understand that, in Italy, on average four weeks of every year since the war have been spent haggling over who would form the Government.
Haggling would inevitably draw the monarch into the system. There would be a serious danger of the monarch being drawn into party politics. As Vernon Bogdanor has rightly said:
When the incumbent Prime Minister resigned the monarch would have to decide whom to summon to the palace…This could involve the monarch unwittingly in party politics, for the candidate first called…would enjoy a considerable advantage over all rivals, since he or she would have both the political initiative and the authority to offer posts in a Government and would also acquire the aura of power which could well permit the formation of a Government even if he or she did not at first appear a likely choice as Prime Minister.
If the political situation was tense, the monarch could easily be accused of favouring one side over another.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has suggested in the past that the way around the problem would be to devolve those powers from the monarch to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He wittily claimed that, in a three-party system, that would avoid replacing first past the post with first past the palace. I do not believe that the system would work, as it does in Sweden, because it would undermine the vital role of the Speaker in this House, who is independent and above party politics, by dragging the Speaker into party negotiations and bargains.
Others have suggested that the best way to protect the monarch would be to develop conventions that would avoid placing them in a position in which they had to make politically controversial decisions. However well intentioned the idea, it would not work because it would not be easy for politicians to develop such conventions, for the simple reason that they would be required to accept the existence of constitutional rules that took precedence over party conflict.
Similarly, PR has serious implications for the role of the Cabinet in the Commons. Coalition Government means a coalition Cabinet with members of different parties. That leads to the strength of the Prime Minister being undermined. There are conflicts over who can be sacked in a reshuffle and how, and over the drawing up of the Government's programme. The temptation for rows, internal wrangling and a do-nothing situation is overwhelming and condemns the idea.
There is an argument that a weakened Government would lead to a strengthened House of Commons because the Government would have to listen to the House more and would not treat Back Benchers simply as Lobby fodder. However attractive that might be in theory to

Back Benchers, I suspect that, in the real world, it would be unobtainable pie in the sky because, whatever the composition of the Government, the power of patronage and ministerial office, not to mention ministerial cars, remains. Where there is hope for Back Benchers, however thin, the power of the Executive will be dominant.
I remain deeply opposed to the idea of proportional representation. It would be a disaster, and I share wholeheartedly the views expressed by the Prime Minister in The Economist in September 1996. He said:
I personally remain unpersuaded that proportional representation would be beneficial for the Commons… It is not a simple question of moving from an 'unfair' to a 'fair' voting system. An electoral system must meet two democratic tests: it needs to reflect opinion, but it must also aggregate opinion without giving disproportionate influence to splinter groups. Aggregation is particularly important for a Parliament whose job is to create and sustain a single, mainstream Government.
Those words were right in 1996 when the Prime Minister wrote them and they are right now. After the most recent European elections, I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the Prime Minister holds to that credo even more than when he wrote it three years ago. He probably rues the day that he ever embarked on the debacle of introducing proportional representation for those elections because of the Pandora's box that it has opened.

Mr. Alan Keen: I add my welcome and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his excellent maiden speech and look forward to debating with him in future. I speak as secretary of the first-past-the-post group. I had no idea that my hon. Friend would speak today, but I, too, had Derek Fatchett's name in mind as he was chairman of the first-past-the-post group.
We will not forget Derek for many reasons and that is one of them. I played cricket with him many times and went on two tours abroad with him. I knew Derek and his wife Anita very well. He was well-respected as a Minister in west London, where the hon. Member for Leeds, Central gave so much to politics. The Asian community there trusted him to deal with the politics of their native countries. It is sad that we no longer have Derek to pursue solutions to some of the tremendously difficult problems to which he applied his considerable skills.
I oppose the motion and support the Government amendment because the Government are committed to a referendum on the issue. I am proud to be on the Government Benches. It is sometimes difficult to convince people that the Government have carried out so many of their promises, and that that was the case at the European elections. That is such a rarity.
Over the years, there have been many debates on proportional representation, but, until recently, they have been theoretical. We have now experienced the practicalities and we have seen the results in Scotland and Wales. I shall leave the details to others, but it is worth repeating some of the points that have been raised.
The slogan used by those in favour of proportional representation is "Fair Votes". Of course, in Scotland, fair votes helped them into government and that is hardly fair. Nobody can dispute that.
Let me raise another concern. I have been to several party conferences held by those who advocate proportional representation. Anyone who has not done so


should go along. It is interesting even for those of us who disagree. I always had the impression that most of the people who attended were either politicians or politicians to be. However, democracy is not really for politicians but for the people. We are here to carry out the wishes of the people and it is the people who really matter.
The greatest example of public involvement in politics is what people do at general elections. However high an opinion we may have of ourselves, the public do not vote Governments in; they vote them out. If we introduce proportional representation, we shall take away for ever the electorate's strongest weapon. Under proportional representation, if, at the end of the term, the Scottish electorate decides that it has had enough of the Labour Government, I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats will disappear. If I were Foreign Secretary, I would come up with a wonderful argument as to why it would be good for the British public if I stayed on and worked with the other party. I would argue that the wonderful experience that I had had would be useful to a different Prime Minister. Even I could come up with that argument. I fear that, if we introduce proportional representation, we shall take away the public's final weapon.

Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a coincidence that Lord Jenkins should invent a system, the only beneficiary of which is the Liberal Democrat party?

Mr. Keen: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: The point has been made that the commission was chaired by a Liberal Democrat peer. However, two of the other members of the commission are Labour peers, the fourth is a Conservative peer and the fifth is a civil servant. Does my hon. Friend think that they all set out to do something to benefit the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Keen: The coalition that put together the proposal shows what a coalition Government would produce. I attended the meeting in the Grand Committee Room when Lord Jenkins put his proposals. I recall a comment by an hon. Member who is also a Member of the Welsh Assembly. When Lord Jenkins introduced the proposals, he said that he had fought so many elections—I have forgotten how many—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, "I have fought a similar number of elections, but all for the same party."
Some of the muddle associated with having representatives without constituencies occurred in my own borough the day after the European elections when the only Liberal Democrat MEP for London suddenly appeared in the headlines promising to save Chiswick pool. If she can do that, all credit to her, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her. That is what happens when Members do not have their own constituencies. They will be wandering about making publicity statements without any means of carrying out their promises. We must remember when we debate electoral systems that we are talking about what happens not just at the first election under proportional representation,

but at the next election and the one after. It will not be possible for the public to judge who has done what and whether they should be re-elected.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman talks about the detachment of the elected person from responsibility. Does he agree that there is also a detachment from accountability, because people will not be able to judge how well or badly their representative has done? It has been said that, at the European elections, people felt that they could not pin responsibility on to an individual candidate. That robs ordinary men and women of their sense of what democracy is all about.

Mr. Keen: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his intervention.
Although I understand that there are flaws in the system in respect of total votes, I support the first-past-the-post system. I serve my constituents in the best way that I can, although I do not always enjoy it. Only last Friday, I spent six or seven hours in my advice surgeries. It is pretty tough having to face people knowing that they are attacking the Government whom I support. Of course, they also attack the previous Government, but, after two years, it is difficult always to blame them. It is pretty tough facing people who do not have adequate homes—or have no homes at all—or people whose families have been left in Somalia or Kosovo and cannot be traced. I am the only person to whom they can turn for help. I make an effort to tackle Ministers as hard as I can to try to get a result. It matters to me because those people are my constituents. The main reason why I support first past the post is accountability.
Finally, we should not restrict our research into voting systems to electoral reform versus first past the post. By that, I am not talking about allowing people to vote electronically.
Most people do not like politicians. We think more of ourselves most of the time than they think of us—nobody here would disagree with that. The biggest complaint of electors is that they do not always get what they vote for. We should investigate the use of electronic media to allow voters to give their opinions, although I am not talking about referendums on every issue that comes along.
We should look also at term limits, to limit the time that a Member of Parliament can serve. I would exclude from that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is worth 20 ordinary Members of Parliament. However, it is a principle that I should like us to look at. The President of the United States has a term limit of eight years, and there is a good reason for that. President Reagan—probably the last person whom I would have expected to become involved in arms reduction talks—made progress with Gorbachev because he wanted to achieve something before he had to relinquish office. When people argue whether that is a good thing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The point about any democratic electoral system is that it should give power to the people. The big problem with the


proportional systems that we are discussing is that they take power away from the people and give it to politicians.
Many points have been made comparing the AV-plus system to first past the post, and I shall not repeat them. However, any alternative vote system where candidates are listed in order of preference is most unfair and unproportional—exactly the opposite of the argument that Labour Members have made. If they are listed in order of preference, and nobody gets more than 50 per cent. of the vote, the votes of the least-popular candidate are redistributed. Once again, if no one gets more than 50 per cent., the votes of the second-least-popular candidate are redistributed yet again. In fact, the more eccentric the candidate for whom one votes, the more one's votes count, because the votes are redistributed two or three times. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has coined a phrase for this: "Vote wacky, vote often." That is what AV plus would do.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: If the system is so wacky, why does the Conservative party use it to elect its leader? When the hon. Lady talks about wacky candidates, is she referring to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whose second preferences determined the outcome of the Conservative party's leadership election?

Mrs. Laing: No, I am not. That was a quite different election in totally different circumstances. We are talking today about elections to this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is passionate about this subject and he makes his points eloquently. Sadly, he is wrong.
Proportional systems lead inevitably to weak coalition Governments. One of the great strengths of our system is that, for most of this century—except in wartime—we have had strong and decisive Governments. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that the 1974 election was indecisive. He was right, but the right thing for the Prime Minister to do was to go back to the country and get a decisive result. That was what he did. It was not good for my party, but we are not arguing for the good of my party. We are arguing for the good of the country and, for that, we need strong, and not weak, Governments.
The situation in Scotland is totally inequitable as, because of a coalition between the party that got the most votes and the party that got the least votes, the manifesto that is now being implemented in Scotland is one for which nobody voted. There is nothing fair about that. It is a mish-mash of one party' policies with those of another. The only fair voting system—the only one that is right for this House as a strong House of Parliament—is the one in which the person who gets the most votes, wins. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Alan Johnson: I was very impressed by the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). I tell people that I used to be a civil servant working for his father. Actually, his father was the Postmaster General when I became a postman—but it sounds better. It is a pleasure to have my hon. Friend in the House.
We are talking about the Jenkins report, and our intention to give the British public a choice of whether they wish to change the voting system as

it recommends. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time today whether he would vote yes or no. However, if we have a referendum, it will be not a yes or no vote, but a choice between first past the post—which is guaranteed to be on the ballot paper—and a new proportional system, as recommended by Jenkins.
Some of the arguments of Conservative Members deserve to receive a platform in a wider debate about our electoral system. Today is the first time that I have heard the argument that we need first past the post to defend the monarchy. That is a new one, but let us debate the issue.
The trouble is that we are debating a number of points upon which Jenkins has written elegantly, but which have not been read—for instance, the point about coalition Governments. We have heard over and over again that the principal benefit of our current system is that we do not have coalition governments. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that we have had, apart from wartime, no coalition Government this century.
Jenkins points out that in only 64 out of the past 150 years in this Parliament has a Government ruled without coalition, dependence on a minority party or some form of co-operation. The principal benefit put forward by the supporters of first past the post is tackled successfully by the report.
We have been asked to say that our experience of recent elections should cause us to think again. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a witty speech, but it did not address the issues. His speech was rather spoiled by the revelation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman had voted for practically the same European system that we have just experienced.
We are being asked to accept that it would have been better for the people of Scotland and Wales to have a different voting system—that our experience of a proportional system was so horrific that we needed to think again about having that system for Westminster. I have heard many views about the Welsh and Scottish system. However, I have heard no great complaints from the Welsh and Scottish people about the system. In suggesting that they might have been happier with first-past-the-post system, we are suggesting also that we could have had one-party elected dictatorships on the basis of 39 per cent. of the vote in Scotland and 37 per cent. in Wales. That is the real argument that can be made from the Welsh and Scottish experiences.

Ms Claire Ward: My hon. Friend makes the point about percentages needed to gain a majority. In the Scottish Parliament elections, Labour gained 53 seats out of 72 seats with only 39 per cent. of the vote. That is hardly a recommendation for a change in the system for Westminster.

Mr. Johnson: That is why the top-up is there. I remind my hon. Friend that it was the people of Scotland who voted in a referendum for a Scottish Parliament elected under a proportional system.
The other great argument put forward against a proportional system concerns the constituency link. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made the point eloquently, and it is a powerful argument for people who support the


current system. The Jenkins system is not the Scottish system, or the Welsh system, or the European Union system: it is a system adapted to the Westminster model. The Jenkins proposals would strengthen the constituency link. For example, no one could be elected to represent a constituency on 25 per cent. of the vote—as happened in one constituency in 1992—because all Members would be elected on 50 per cent. plus.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned the alternative vote system. It is used in many elections, including the elections to the Church Synod, for the leadership of the Conservative party—

Dr. Julian Lewis: It has been scrapped.

Mr. Johnson: That is another reason why the Conservatives are going backwards, not forwards. To come to this place with the support of more than 50 per cent. of the electorate strengthens the constituency link. The supporters of first past the post have another persuasive argument. They argue that people in constituencies need to vote for a name. A local Member of Parliament may manage to convince people that they should vote for him or her against their party allegiance. The Jenkins proposals would strengthen the constituency link by empowering the voter to decide whether their local Member of Parliament had persuaded them to vote for him or her, and still allow a say in who forms the Government because their top-up vote can be cast in another direction.

Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Johnson: I am sorry, but I have not got time. The issue has been debated in the House all this century. A Speaker's Conference has considered the issue and decided we should change to a proportional system. A Hansard Society Conference came to the same conclusion. At every step, from 1910 to 1976, every analysis of the issue has suggested that we should change to a more proportional system, and the House of Commons has twice voted for a proportional system and been overruled by the second Chamber. Therefore, I believe that we should now take this issue outside this Chamber and go to the British people. Taking up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, let me say that, if we are to bring integrity back to politics, we should carry out our manifesto commitment and allow the widest possible debate. I am confident that, when the British public listen to the arguments, they will decide to change the system.

Mr. William Ross: We are all aware that the motion calls on the Government to make up their mind where they stand on PR. The Unionist party's amendment sets out our position—namely, that the unsuitability of PR is well proven and that the House should say so and be done with it, in all its different forms in all of the United Kingdom. We have rather more experience of PR than anyone else, because we have used it for a long time.
Our amendment would remove from the motion any reference to referendums, because they are not our favourite way of proceeding. They shift the decision from this House to the people, and that is a cop-out for Members of Parliament who are elected to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents after carefully examining the issues. That opportunity is denied to the vast majority of those who vote for us.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
This debate is timely, coming, as it does, when the electoral consequences of using the party list system for the first time in Great Britain is fresh in our minds. The recent election, although the turnout was very low, does hint at the power of PR systems to create new voting patterns among the electorate. Events in Great Britain are starting down the same route as has been followed in Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote system has been used for many years for local government, European and Assembly elections.
I well recall the despair of the opponents of the Unionist party when the province enjoyed the benefits of the simple majority system of voting. I recall equally well the squawks about the Unionist monolith and how it had to be broken down into the various components of that political movement. Those who sought to achieve that of course averred that, if only it were done, any reasonably sized block of the electorate could elect a representative of their own political view to whom they could appeal.
The proponents of the change clearly believed that, if Unionism were splintered, all in the garden would be rosy and that we would all live happily ever after. I wish that that were so, but it has not happened. The opponents of first past the post clearly understood that PR systems do not draw political activists together into large broad-church parties: instead, they create divisions. The resulting smaller groups are then in endless competition with each other, within the watershed of their different major political philosophies—in Northern Ireland, essentially within the two dominant political elements: Unionism and Irish nationalism. The fissiparous nature and effect of PR systems meant that it became almost impossible to create a consensus on political action within the major blocs—never mind between them. That is still a factor in Northern Ireland.
The first-past-the-post system presents the manipulators of party patronage with a great difficulty, in that they cannot control the selection of a particular candidate. We should all welcome that. Selection rests, by and large, with the local party and the electors, who happily and regularly select and elect people of whom the leadership does not approve. I wonder whether the esteemed father of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who made his maiden speech today, would have been selected and elected if the party leadership had had the choice. Such dissident voices within the party structure are often vital new ingredients in precipitating internal debate and the evolution of party policies.
The Home Secretary made an astonishing statement today when he said that the European Parliament was a representative body and not one from which a Government are drawn. It must follow that the


Government favour a system which gives a clear-cut decision, and none does that better than the first-past-the-post system. I also am very much in favour of the capacity of the simple majority system to inflict occasional mass extinctions of particular groups of politicians. That is a painful experience, but it drives the critical re-examination of attitude and policy that is needed on occasion.
PR systems create and perpetuate a situation in which a change of Government is hard to bring about, and even when it does happen, some of the minor groups remain almost permanently in Government, pushing, and pushing successfully, their own narrow agenda in order to improve their own position. Such systems also increase the power of the party elite and diminish the power of the electorate. In addition, some systems such as the single transferable vote enhance the electoral prospects of the most extreme elements. They are unrestrained by the discipline required in a large party and can be a corrosive influence on any society. I part company on that point with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), because it is not necessarily a party of the centre that forms the fulcrum of a hung Parliament or provides the numbers necessary to create a majority for the Government. It can be, and has in the past been, small extreme groups that have performed that role, and we should all deplore that.
I have opposed proportional representation since it was first mooted in Northern Ireland. I see no reason to change my mind, either for Northern Ireland or for Westminster.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for curtailing his remarks. The Minister and I have agreed to accept the same inhibitions, so I hope to be forgiven for not giving way.
The House has united on one matter in this debate—the quality of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). It was splendid. He spoke with admirable eloquence, lucidity, wit and brevity. I know that he represents the fifth generation of his family to be here, but if he can keep up that performance, he will be a worthy follower of his father. Seeing father and son together during that maiden speech was one of the pleasantest sights of my many years in the House. I wish the hon. Gentleman an illustrious parliamentary career. If he can even begin to emulate his father as a parliamentarian, he will be an adornment to the House well into the next century.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central maintained another tradition by being non-controversial in his maiden speech and not giving us much of an inkling of his views. It was apposite that his tribute to his predecessor, Derek Fatchett—in which all hon. Members would wish to share—was echoed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), who, in a very robust speech, reminded us that Derek Fatchett was chairman of the first-past-the-post committee.
The House is at its best when there is no strict party division. In an excellent debate, and some good, robust speeches, both sides of the argument have been put. Sadly, I cannot include the Home Secretary's speech among them. The right hon. Gentleman gave us almost half an hour of genial waffle—indeed, he has been at his engaging best all day, as earlier he offered his mea culpa

with great wit and panache. We understand that the Home Secretary could not admit that he was wrong for a second time, but he suggested that the Government would not hold a referendum in this Parliament. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I shall of course give way to him, but his suggestion shows that the Government's election promise is already broken. If so, they may as well ditch it, and thereby please hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The status quo was defended in some splendid speeches—by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). However, I hope that they will forgive me for saying that the speech by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston really hit the nail on the head. He said that the great virtue of the present system was that it enabled the electorate to send a Government packing and indicate their dissatisfaction in a way that was impossible under an election system that resembles a football pools permutation.
That speech should be read, marked and inwardly digested by every hon. Member in the House, and I commend the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston on it. It reminded me of this morning's broadcast by that doughty octogenarian Baroness Castle, who said that this country wanted hands-on politics. She said that the present system gave us that, and that other systems would not.
There were defenders of change. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he could see a ripple spreading through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is good on ripples, but he is not one to make waves. I suppose that we shall have to wait and see what happens, but the right hon. Gentleman's case was not convincing. Eloquent speeches were made by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), but none of them answered the questions about the Jenkins system.
This debate was about the system for elections to this House. Specifically, it was about the Jenkins system, which has been offered as an alternative. That system would create second-class Members of Parliament who would not represent constituencies. They would not be as well regarded as those who do represent constituencies.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made the point that our system's greatest single virtue is that we represent all the electors in our constituencies. No system can be better than that.
There was talk about 50 per cent. and Jenkins. A respectable way to achieve 50 per cent. and electoral reform is to have a two-round election, but no one suggested that. The extraordinary, pseudo-sophisticated document cooked up by Lord Jenkins and his cohorts is of no consequence and should be thrown away.
In common with many hon. Members—and certainly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I love the House and most things about it. I even love the Liberal Democrats, when they get here on their own merits. However, I shrink at the prospect of an assembly of Yeovil clones or political Ovaltinies. That is what we


would get if we moved towards proportional representation, and that is why the Liberal Democrats want it.
I am old enough to remember the radio doctor. In one wonderful broadcast he castigated J.B. Priestley, that intellectual giant of the left. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will remember the occasion: at the end of the broadcast, the doctor said, "Chuck it, Priestley." When it comes to proportional representation, I say, "Chuck it, Straw. Chuck it, Blair. Get rid of it. It's no damn good to anybody." Proportional representation is a way of getting what no one really wants. It is the last refuge of the hopeless, and elevates to absurdity the doctrine of the underdog by enshrining the constitutional principle that those who never get chosen must always get a prize. Lewis Carroll would have been proud.
No powerful or plausible argument has been made for the Jenkins system. As I said, the debate has been about how this House should be elected. The Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the fence on which he has sat for so long that the wobble has entered his soul, but he has said that Jenkins is the alternative.
Jenkins will not be an improvement, so we should reject it. There is no point in putting the country to the absurd and time-wasting expense of a referendum on it. Perhaps a better system can be found for the country to consider, but I remain to be persuaded. We should vote tonight to show that the House of Commons is united in preferring a system that produces stable and proper Government.
Those hon. Members who read English at university may remember the following verse.

"I dreamt last night that Shakespeare's ghost
Sat for a civil service post.
The English paper for the year
Contained a question on King Lear
Which Shakespeare answered badly
Because he hadn't studied Bradley."
I was thinking of that the other day, and my version would be:

"I dreamt last night that Gladstone's ghost
Stood for a town on the south-west coast
The electoral system then in force
Meant he came first, but the seat was lost."

That is what would happen if we supported Jenkins. We should see it off tonight and get rid of it. The Government have broken their pledge for this Parliament and should ditch it once and for all. Let us retain this Parliament as it always has been—properly elected according to a system that everyone understands. Most people regard that system as fair and sensible, and consider that it produces stable government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a good debate, despite the partisan remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I congratulate the Opposition on giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue which exercises us all.
I join all those who have sincerely congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his maiden speech. A few of us—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) included—have been by-election candidates. It is always daunting to make a maiden speech, but to do so as the sole new intake is even more so. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and with passion. His remarks about Derek Fatchett were well judged and a fine summary of a man who was a friend to many of us. We all look forward to further speeches from my hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was of course characteristically coy about his own views on proportional representation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: What are the Minister's?

Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that.
One person has been missing from the debate, but frequently referred to—Lord Jenkins. It is a little unfair to those who sat on his commission that it is constantly referred to as though he alone did the work. Some worthy people worked long and hard to come up with the proposals.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I place it on the record that the one Conservative member of the Jenkins commission dissented, disapproved and distanced himself from its recommendations?

Mr. Howarth: I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to get that off his chest.
The terms of reference of the commission were as follows:
The Commission shall be free to consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the Government's referendum.
The Commission shall observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable Government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of the link between MPs and geographical constituencies.
The proposals produced by the commission met those terms of reference as well as could be expected. I do not necessarily endorse the proposals, but the commission examined its terms of reference, and produced something as close to them as possible.
Several hon. Members—in particular the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)—asked the great unanswered question about the Jenkins proposals. That question is whether the proposals would lead to different classes of Member in the House of Commons.
No matter how we examine that point, there would inevitably be conflict if two people represented different parts of an area who were elected by different systems. Members would bid to see which of them should take on cases. For constituency work that ought to be clearly allocated, constituents would be able to shop around to find the Member most prepared to take on the case. It is inevitable that that would raise problems of identity. Who would represent the constituency? Would there be two


classes of Member of Parliament? I suspect that there would, and Scotland and Wales will give us an opportunity to judge how that system will work.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was characteristically thoughtful. He mentioned the effect that the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections had on the local government elections held the same day. He will recall that that was not the first time that wide-scale elections have coincided with local ones. In 1979, I stood for election not to this House but to Knowsley borough council, and the high turnout gave me a majority in my council ward far larger than those of many Members of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about weekend voting, specifically on Sundays. As he knows, in some parts of the country—particularly in Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland—Sunday voting would create problems for people of certain religious denominations. Weekend voting would, however, resolve some turnout problems.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Leeds, Central said that we should consider electoral systems and procedures, but also how we conduct our politics. We must address the needs of communities and constituents to be at one with the communities that we serve. That principle is as important as the procedures and electoral systems that we adopt. Time prevents me from covering the other excellent speeches made.
The Government and the official Opposition are divided on one simple point. No matter what point of view any Labour Member may have about which electoral system is most appropriate, we are prepared to leave it to the people to decide what the system should be.

Miss Kirkbride: When?

Sir Patrick Cormack: When?

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I cannot give way as there are only two minutes left. The answer to when the referendum will be has been so often given today that I need not repeat it. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has handed me a note saying "one minute", but I do not think that he means that it will be held then.
We need a wider debate that goes beyond the House. The House alone cannot decide how we elect Members of Parliament. If we involve the wider electorate, we shall achieve an electoral system in the country's best interests. In the long term, such a system would also be in the best interests of the House.
We trust the people to make that decision. The Opposition must stop running away from the people. They must trust to the fact that some decisions are best taken by the people, not by the Members of the House of Commons.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister confirm that he means that the referendum will be in the next Parliament, not this one?

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 365.

Division No. 218]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
Johnson Smith,


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Key, Robert


Beggs, Roy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bercow, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Leigh, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lidington, David


Brady, Graham
Loughton, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Luff, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brue, lan (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Mates, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Randall, John


Evans, Nigel
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Robathan, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fallon, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forsythe, Clifford
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, William


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew



Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen






Whitney, Sir Raymond
Woodward, Shaun


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Keith Simpson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allan, Richard
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coleman, lain


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Baker, Norman
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cranston, Ross


Barron, Kevin
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Begg, Miss Anne
(Copeland)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Darvill, Keith


Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dawson, Hilton


Blizzard, Bob
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Borrow, David
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Doran, Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brake, Tom
Drown, Ms Julia


Breed, Colin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Effort, Clive


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Burgon, Colin
Fied, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Foster, Don (Bath)


(NE Fife)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Church, Ms Judith
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Goggins, Paul
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Golding, Mrs Llin
Linton, Martin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Livingstone, Ken


Gorrie, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lock, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAvoy, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
McCabe, Steve


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonnell, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McFall, John


Hanson, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McIsaac, Shona


Harris, Dr Evan
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Harvey, Nick
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Heppell, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Miller, Andrew



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Illsley, Eric
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mudie, George


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pickthall, Colin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Quinn, Lawrie


Laxton, Bob
Radice, Giles


Lepper, David
Rammell, Bill


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)






Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rendel, David
Stunell, Andrew


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruddock, Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Trickett, Jon


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Singh, Marsha
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wyatt, Derek


Stott, Roger



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Mike Hall and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that different electoral systems may be appropriate for elections to different institutions; commends the Government's commitment to let the final decision on the voting system for the House of Commons be made by the people in a referendum; and welcomes the Government's approach which allows for a full debate in the country on the merits of the Jenkins system before a referendum is held.

Business Statement

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement. Following the statement earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the business for tomorrow will now include, at the end of the Opposition day, a motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB Order) 1999.

Sir George Young: In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said earlier today, the Opposition support the change of business outlined by the Leader of the House to put right the deficiency described by the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I know is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tom King: When the order is debated tomorrow, could there be a statement about how, for nearly a month, people could not be arrested on suspicion of planning a terrorist offence? That was known to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary for more than a month, yet nothing was done. That is a serious dereliction of duty. If a terrorist offence had been committed during that time, hon. Members can imagine what the consequences might have been: people could not have been arrested because such activities were not unlawful. The matter clearly needed to be dealt with urgently, and I understand that the order that has been produced—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is not the time to debate that issue. This is a business statement.

Mrs. Beckett: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to debate the order tomorrow, no doubt he will be able to do so. He has made the same point that he made earlier. Once the matter was drawn to his attention, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a duty to seek legal advice—and that process is usually not short in duration. Secondly, as I understand it, it was pointed out in earlier exchanges today that there are other measures on the statute book to deal with the issues in question. These are specific provisions that are considered necessary, but we are not without protection if we do not deal with them. However, it is considered important—and the Government believe it is important—to bring the measures into effect as speedily as possible.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The serious point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) notwithstanding, the House recognises that the Government have responded speedily to the situation, have made a business statement as quickly as possible and are dealing with the matter at an early opportunity. We welcome that fact and look forward to the debate tomorrow.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising—as I hope do all hon. Members—that the


Government could not anticipate that the House would be ready to deal with this matter so speedily. We are grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for being prepared to make an early change in the business.

Mr. Michael Howard: Given the Government's response to the invitation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I extended to the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon, it would be churlish of us not to welcome this change of heart. However, will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it is a change of heart, that this was not the Government's original intention and that the Government should have shown far greater urgency in restoring to the statute book measures that are needed to deal with these matters and which—contrary to what the right hon. Lady said a moment ago—are not covered precisely by the other existing offences? If they had been covered precisely by the other offences, there would have been no need to create these offences in the first place.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I accept that the matters are not covered precisely. However, he will understand—I suspect better than many—the point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier today. We are not utterly without cover when it comes to such matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a change of heart and the need for greater urgency. I remind him—I say this with respect; it is not a criticism—that he does not, perfectly understandably, spend a great deal of time considering the business of the House and other matters of such rather arcane detail.
It has been, and is, the consistent view of Opposition Members—I do not attack them for it; it is perfectly reasonable for them to hold such a view—that the Government should give proper notice of changes in business and that they should be respectful of the wishes and the will of the House. The Government have responded with as much alacrity as was conceivable to the signals from those on the Conservative Benches that they were prepared to make an early change in the business and to debate the matter with the utmost urgency. I do not think we can be blamed for that.

Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady will reconsider her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). She said that we did not need to worry about

the months that were lost because we "were covered"—those were her words—by other legislation. If we were covered by other legislation, why has the right hon. Lady come to the House now to urge us to deal with the matter urgently? Does she not understand that it does not take a month to obtain legal advice about such an issue? The Government have got it wrong and the right hon. Lady is the unfortunate person who must answer to the House because of it.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to put into my mouth words that I have not uttered. I reject those words. I did not say that there was no need to worry. I simply said that we were not utterly without statutory protection—which is the same point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier. The right hon. Gentleman knows that better than anyone.
It is perhaps not entirely within the best traditions of the House to take the attitude and approach that is being taken at the moment by those on the Conservative Benches, as if my right hon. Friend has been in some way grossly derelict in his duty. He is an extremely conscientious Minister and he is assiduous in his duty to the House and the honour that he pays to its traditions.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend should be criticised for not taking it for granted that the House would be prepared to do anything that the Government wished to restore the provisions to the statute book, at about 10 seconds' notice. Rather, he is to be congratulated on his readiness to recognise that the House might want further notice and on his ability to move speedily when it became clear that the House was prepared to accept the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Can the right hon. Lady explain why the Home Secretary seemed to imply this afternoon that the matter needed to be remedied, but could be remedied in due course? There appeared to be no hurry whatever. How can it be that he has suddenly changed his mind? Will she accept that only pressure from my right hon. Friends and myself this afternoon has brought the urgency of the matter to the Government's mind?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not accept any of that, and my right hon. Friend did not give any indication that he thought that this was a matter of leisure and of lack of urgency. He paid proper respect to traditions, to the request for notice and to the understandings in the House that Members should have notice of what is being debated and that the consent of the House should not be taken for granted. In my view he should be given credit for that, not blamed for it.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may not be the only Member who might be tempted to raise issues related to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's, Windsor, or to Westminster abbey, but we gather from the report from the Ecclesiastical Committee that the Measure does not apply to either St. George's or to Westminster abbey and only in small part to Christ Church. Could we have guidance on how far we able to refer to events at those three places of worship in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The answer is simply that it will be in order to refer to those institutions in general terms, as far as they relate to the matter we are debating, but it will not be in order to go into any detail about events that have happened in those establishments, which may be what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Measure to the House, not only because it represents a significant step in the process of affirming and strengthening the role of the cathedrals of the Church of England, which are a vital part of the life of the Church, the life of the nation as a whole and our national heritage, but because that process has been initiated and supported by the cathedrals themselves and because the Measure reflects much of the best practice which cathedrals have already adopted.
Much of the Measure deals with the governance of the cathedrals. The existing legislation was laid down more than 35 years ago. Under it, different cathedrals have adopted a variety of structures, and not all of them are equally suitable for the 21st century. A number of cathedrals have attempted to update those structures, but, under present legislation, that means going through a fairly lengthy and complex procedure. Partly as a result of that, and also because of a desire to review the working of the cathedrals as a whole, the cathedrals asked the two archbishops to set up a commission to examine those issues.
The commission, under the chairmanship of Lady Howe of Aberavon, had broad terms of reference and its report, "Heritage and Renewal", which was published in 1994, covered many aspects of the life of the cathedrals. The commission's recommendations were widely welcomed and are being taken up in various ways. The Measure stems from the main recommendations, which can be implemented only by legislation.
The Measure will set up a single framework for the efficient, effective and transparent governance of all cathedrals, providing the governing bodies with proper support, ensuring accountability and encouraging effective links with the bishops and the diocese as a whole. The governing body will be a new chapter,

which will be a different body from the existing chapters in some cathedrals. It will include the senior cathedral clergy, the dean and the residentiary canons, but it will also include others, including a proportion of lay people. A number of cathedrals already have people other than the cathedral clergy on their governing bodies and I am sure that they would vouch for the advantages that that brings.
The chapter will be supported on financial matters and investment management by a finance committee, which will include people with financial expertise. There will also be an administrator, who may be a voting member of the chapter. Again, that reflects what is already happening in a number of cathedrals.
A new feature is the creation of a council—a larger body to which the chapter will be accountable—with a chairman chosen by the bishop. That body will also consider the budget prepared by the chapter and decide on any future changes to the cathedral's constitution within the terms of the Measure. In addition, there will be a college of canons, including almost all the cathedral clergy and, in particular, the honorary canons or the prebendaries, who are often parish priests in the diocese. In some cathedrals, lay canons will also be included. The college will receive an annual report from the chapter.
There must be a roll of the worshippers at the cathedral and members of its parish, should it have one, or of members of the wider "cathedral community" should there be no parish. The cathedral community will also be represented on the council. All that provides a framework, setting out a basic and common structure of organisation and accountability. However, each cathedral is justly proud of its traditions and the cathedrals operate in varying local contexts and circumstances. Thus, the Measure deliberately allows a good deal of flexibility to cathedrals within the basic framework so that they can take all those factors into account.
The Measure sets out to make the constitutions of the cathedrals responsive to future needs by making the process of change much simpler while ensuring that clergy and laity have a right to make representations about what is proposed. Above all, the Measure provides that everyone who has functions under it must have regard to the basic purpose of the cathedral—namely, that it is the so-called "seat" of the bishop of the diocese and a centre of worship and mission.
The Measure received overwhelming support from the General Synod, and I know that many cathedrals are enthusiastically preparing to implement it should it be passed by the House and by the other place shortly. It will help the cathedrals to continue to play their important role in the life of the Church and of the nation effectively in the years to come. I therefore invite the House to approve the Measure.

Mr. Robert Key: We are very grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Second Church Estates Commissioner, for introducing the Measure and thank him for all the work he has put in over the past year and more. We are also grateful to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Out in the real world, people do not know what the Ecclesiastical Committee is, and I think they assume that it is an ad hoc Committee of fully paid-up members of the


Church of England—that, of course, it is not. It is a Committee of both Houses and of all parties and none, notably cross-Benchers in the House of Lords, and of all denominations and none. It was set up to ensure that Church of England legislation impacts reasonably on the citizens of this country—of whatever denomination, or none, they may be.
The Committee consists of a number of distinguished hon. Members who have given a great deal of service, and none greater than my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has served some 28 years on the Committee. We congratulate him on that. Two members of the Committee represent cathedral cities—Exeter and Southwark. I had anticipated that they would be here tonight and had hoped to refer to them, but neither took part in the relevant proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee, either the examination of witnesses or the decision to agree that the Cathedrals Measure was expedient on 18 June 1998. However, it gives me great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) here as he represents St. Paul's cathedral.
May I declare an interest at this point? I am a member of the guild of stewards of Salisbury cathedral. That is not some grand office; it simply means that I take the collection and welcome visitors. To those who work in our cathedrals, particularly volunteers, the kerfuffles in the abbey and the events at Lincoln have an air of virtual reality—or, indeed, complete unreality in some cases. At Salisbury, the dean and the precentor, above all, keep an eye on the stewards. We all know that there are stewards and stewards. Those of us who visit other cathedrals around the country know that some stewards are pompous, some are vain, some are control freaks, some are quick-witted and some are otherwise, and some are over-enthusiastic with visitors.
When one is a steward, one never quite knows what will happen. One never knows where the processions will go; one is not sure whether there should be incense or not, and what difference that will make; one never knows how many people will turn up for Sunday school; and one does not know whether to use two bags or three for the collection, and whether they will be dropped. Those are the realities of life in a cathedral, as opposed to the legalistic discussion that the Ecclesiastical Committee has enjoyed over the past year or so.
Volunteers in cathedrals must now be aware of health and safety rules. They must know how to evacuate a cathedral, how to give medical assistance—I vividly recall running out of aspirin for somebody a couple of weeks ago in Salisbury cathedral—and how to cope with revellers at midnight services and interrogations from earnest American visitors seeking tombs. A couple of weeks ago, I was challenged by an American claiming that his ancestor was St. Margaret of Scotland and asking where her chapel was. Fortunately, I knew the answer. Unfortunately, we also have to cope with the grief of the stricken, the downhearted and the bereaved.
The cathedral communities are rich and rounded, and it is a privilege to serve in them. I have known Salisbury since I was two years old. I recall lighting the Christmas tree in Salisbury cathedral 50 years ago.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The tree or the candles?

Mr. Key: I lit the candles, not the tree. Now, candles are too dangerous and we have to have twinkling little electric lights, which are a bit twee. Never mind, they are still wonderful.
My late father was the Bishop of Sherborne, which is a suffragan of Salisbury, and later of Truro. My son was a chorister in Salisbury and my daughters attended the Sunday school.
I have discussed the Cathedrals Measure with my bishop and my dean, and I have read the Measure and the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Incidentally, I have met the Dean of Westminster to discuss the administration of the abbey and the issue of Royal Peculiars.
I support the Measure, although I do so with some regrets. First, I regret very much the deeply damaging fiasco at Westminster abbey concerning its most distinguished former organist. That should simply never have occurred. Due process of law has now been followed, at substantial cost. To most people, the outcome remains unhappy and unsatisfactory.
Inevitably, all of that drew in the Royal Peculiars. I appreciate and agree that they are quite different from cathedrals, and in due course proposals may be put to the Ecclesiastical Committee by the legislative committee of the Synod. The bad press surrounding all of that was deeply wounding to all those involved, not just in Westminster abbey, but throughout the Church, however humble their function—passing the collection bags—or much more exalted occupations. I shall draw a line under that subject, because I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to refer to it.
My other regret and reservation is that the ancient statutes of our cathedrals have worked most of the time and in most cathedrals. However, synodical government has not worked particularly well since its introduction. It has undermined the authority of the archbishops, bishops, deans, chapters and parish priests in the name of wider participation and greater accountability. Ultimately, however, it has done little to increase either.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: A number of us would not necessarily agree with what my hon. Friend said about Westminster abbey, although this is not the place to have that discussion. Lack of defence should not therefore be taken as all-round agreement.
On synodical government, does my hon. Friend accept that many archbishops have said that synodical government is pretty grim, but that it might be slightly less grim than taking all stages of Church legislation through this House, which would have been the alternative?

Mr. Key: The archbishops may agree with that, and I am sure that they do not want to have a grim life and will do anything to make it a bit easier. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said: I regret the diminution in the authority of bishops in the Church of England and, indeed, other bishops.
The bishops are under great pressure. Indeed, they have never been under greater pressure and I deplore the unwarranted attacks that are made on them from time to time. I leap to the defence of my bishop, who was accused


by a Sunday tabloid of leading an extravagant life style, with champagne breakfasts and all the other nonsense that goes with that. It is important to get this matter in perspective and to realise that a senior diocesan bishop earns about half the pay of a Member of Parliament and about the same as the head of a village primary school in my constituency. Just as business men do not count their offices, their secretaries or their expenses as income, nor do bishops—quite properly. The same applies to journalists, council staff or anybody else. It is hypocrisy of a high order to attack bishops, deans or any other members of the clergy, who are, by any standards, modestly paid, on those grounds.
Cathedrals, however, have become big business. They now call for a new quality of leadership and management, which was not needed 50 or even 10 years ago. The lay functions involved in running our cathedrals have grown enormously, as have the responsibilities for the fabric, the worship, the music and the volunteers. Even responsibility for the sandwiches and cups of tea has grown out of all proportion. It has sometimes been wounding to volunteers when they have had to be told that things have become so professional that they simply cannot keep up with the requirements.
Above all, the Measure entrenches and spreads best practice, much of which already exists. For example, since I first had the privilege of worshipping in Salisbury cathedral, the numbers involved in the life of the cathedral have risen dramatically. There are two choirs instead of one, and we established the first girls' choir in the country. The cathedral school has grown, and the responsibilities of the chapter office have increased. The cathedral's budget has risen, as have the charges for entering the cathedral, which is visited by tourists from all over the world. However, it must be said that the heating and the sound systems work, thanks often to the friends of the cathedrals, who meet much of the cost.
The cathedral close no longer looks tatty as it did when I was a child. Indeed, it may have gone a little far in the other direction and have become something of a millionaires' row, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who occupies a house in the close. He is very welcome.
Management problems for our cathedrals have also increased. Above all, the number of worshippers has risen dramatically. I remember how empty Salisbury cathedral was when I was a child, and I attended most Sundays. By comparison, today congregations are measured in hundreds on an ordinary Sunday and by thousands at the great festivals. We should acknowledge that.
Congregations are up, and the electoral roll is up. Salisbury has an electoral roll of 504 this year. The offertory fund is up: we are paying our way as a congregation. The fund stood at £127,000 last year. Last year, the guild of stewards, of which I am a junior member, undertook 1,480 individual duties at 315 services. And we should not forget the 56 "holy dusters" who keep the stalls, the lights and so on clean and shining bright.
Let us put this in perspective. The Measure is intended to spread best practice. Those of us who serve in cathedrals are proud to do so, and the Measure gives an added dimension to the quality of our lives while, hopefully, giving something back to our communities.
I have not dwelt on the legalistic issues. I simply wanted to say, on behalf of those who work as volunteers in our cathedrals, that I for one support the Measure.

Mr. Frank Field: It is always a pleasure to speak in debates on Church matters, because of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) introduces them. Anyone who was unsure of what the Measure was about will, after hearing his speech, understand what we are discussing.
Debates such as this sometimes reveal the most unexpected circumstances. This evening, we have seen someone who is normally one of our more liberal and free-spirited Members making what I would describe as a rather ugly rush at the Chair, taking on the role of censor and trying to prevent others from making, in their simple and humble way, the contributions that they think best. I applaud the way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gently pushed the rush aside.
I know of the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)—I shall call him my hon. Friend—has had both in London and in his constituency. He is astute enough as a politician to be aware of that, in the crucial run-up to a general election two years hence, he must widen his appeal. He must not appeal just to more liberal spirits in his constituency; there is also the authoritarian side, and their votes. He is clearly after those votes, and he is happy to use a Church Measure to show that there is an even nicer side to the face that we already know.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I accept my right hon. Friend's chiding.
I suspect that I am not the only person to have read many books by the Dean of Westminster. I think them well worth reading, and I commend them to those who concern themselves with these matters.
For some reason or other, for 20 years I failed to be appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee, having been a trustee of Christian Aid and chairman of the Church of England Children's Society. I watched with frustration as the committee engaged in all sorts of discussions. If I suspected that this Measure would lead to a rerun of what was in the publicity—I am sure that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention—I would find that equally frustrating.

Mr. Field: We now see a third side to my hon. Friend's character. We see not only the free spirit and the authoritarian, but the angst that he feels as a result of his exclusion from the Ecclesiastical Committee. When there is the possibility of an open debate, he tries to undertake your task, Mr. Deputy Speaker—an attempt that you gently rebuffed—in deciding what we can and cannot discuss.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I do not think that we should ever, in any way, abuse our position or privilege in the House. During the debates that will follow from the Measure, I shall be happy to repeat outside the House what I say inside. I am sorry if that adds yet more to the administrative costs of our abbey across the road.
I discussed how we should approach the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She, too, is worried about what has gone on in the abbey. When I talked to her about it yesterday, I said that I had two particular questions in mind. First, if this reform had been in place at the time,


could the scandal at Lincoln have been prevented? Secondly, if it had been in place, could the scandal at Westminster abbey have been prevented?
We know that there is to be a special inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, and I shall return to that shortly. However, while discussing the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I reflected that, because there is much to be said about the abbey, we ought to ask for a special debate on the subject. That would enable us to discuss not just that long-standing and sad saga, but much of the information that has come to light more recently.
For example, at the weekend, we read in The Sunday Times that some members of the chapter are being given loans, as though the abbey were some sort of merchant bank. We know from the accounts that have just been published that administrative costs have risen by nearly two thirds. I would guess that that increase—an increase of more than half a million pounds—is largely to do with the legal fees incurred. We also note that the abbey gives only 1 per cent. of its income to charitable causes, although Synod—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough—has said that we should give 5 per cent. of our income to such causes. But it would be wrong to try to bring issues concerning the abbey into the debate—indeed, you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and I will therefore seek time for a proper debate about what we think has been going on there.
Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt have protected the privileges of Back Benchers if they had wished to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West that one of the reasons why the Measure will have such a smooth run is that the Church has announced an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars. Tonight's debate might have been slightly different if that inquiry had not been announced.
Let me end by issuing a plea to the inquiry. I beg it not to get things out of proportion, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is clearly an issue regarding what happens in an institution that is a Royal Peculiar when some person behaves badly, and may have to be sacked; and it is clearly immensely difficult if the head of the organisation involved is our monarch. I hope, therefore, that the inquiry will be limited in what it seeks to do. I hope that it will help to answer the question that I have raised, and will not rein back on the special privileges enjoyed by the abbey, St. George's chapel, Windsor and the other Royal Peculiars. I think that it adds immensely to the quality of life in this country that people can do things differently in different places. It would be sad if, because of the serious problems that the abbey has experienced, we encouraged the inquiry to make the Royal Peculiars uniform with other cathedrals.
I shall, in the normal way—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, and, no doubt, other hon. Members in other parties—seek time for a debate enabling us to look properly at what has happened at the abbey. I end, however, by saying again that I am more than happy to repeat outside what I say under privilege here.

Mr. John Gummer: We are discussing, in a very pleasant atmosphere, a Measure presented by the Church of England that is intended to regulate the way in which cathedrals are run. I believe it to be the most far-reaching Measure on this subject that has been presented to the House since 1833, when an ecclesiastical titles Measure removed a large number of members of the cathedral bodies of the time as well as a number of bishoprics in Ireland, where there were few worshippers but many bishops. Two Bills were presented at about the same time, both as a result of the great Reform Bill. So it has been a long time since any serious thought was given to the matter of cathedrals.
The House should recognise that part of the reason why such thought has not been necessary is that cathedrals' structure has been sufficiently flexible that, in different ways and at different times, they have been able to move in meeting the needs not only of the nation but of the diocese that each serves. I therefore share the concern of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the various establishments' flexibility—which is so important—and the differences between institutions should not be lost in seeking to find a solution to fundamental difficulties that have arisen.
I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that one of the problems with cathedrals goes right back to the point in the Reformation when rather different bodies became cathedrals. Until then, those bodies had not been of a cathedral type. A very few of the bodies became Royal Peculiars, and others became the seat of the diocese's bishop. The latter bodies long met a perceived need, but were also burdened with having to carry the weight of the establishment.
There is no doubt that there was some heaviness in the type of structure that those bodies inherited. That was the basis of the 1833 reforms, in which those whom we now call honorary canons became honorary, rather than receiving significant emollients. The reforms were also the background to the novels of Trollope, who was writing about an earlier time in which people such as Vesey Stanhope spent most of the year in Italy, while paying a small sum to someone else to sing the services for which he was responsible. Vesey Stanhope returned only when the appalling Bishop Proudie discovered what had been happening.
Although that type of cathedral has long since gone, there are still those who have operated within the new structure in a way that is difficult to understand, causing great scandal. It would be wrong to deny that the Measure is the result of that fact. On this occasion—unlike that of the churchwardens Measure—the Church of England has not found a solution and then sought a problem. It had a problem and had to find a solution, and this Measure is that solution.
The Ecclesiastical Committee had to consider why the Measure should not affect all institutions of a similar type. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that it would perhaps be better if we referred to none of those institutions. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the truth is that the Measure has taken so long to be considered by the House because, had it come to the House before the Church of England—finally, after all the pressure—decided that it would investigate and produce a report on


the Royal Peculiars, the Measure probably would not have been passed. Hon. Members would have had to say: "Until there is proper provision for all similar institutions, it is not possible to pass this limited Measure." That was the very strong feeling of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it would be odd not to refer to those situations and conditions, even if only in passing.
I am sad about several aspects of the Measure. The first is that it is necessary, essentially because a small number of individuals failed to resign when they should have done. A mid-western American Catholic bishop was asked what he thought about the conduct of the current President of the United States. He said, "It is very simple: it is very odd that he didn't realise that he needed to resign." He made no other comment on the matter. However, that comment was very interesting, as it seemed very clearly to apply also to at least two people who have been at the heart of our debates on the matter. Had they resigned, I doubt whether this legislation would have been needed at all.
The legislation is convenient and will sort out some issues, and the Church of England—which has moved from hierarchy to bureaucracy without any intervening stage of democracy—is very pleased about it, because it is neat. I believe that neatness is the enemy of civilisation. I am therefore sad that we shall now have a neater Church of England, simply because some people failed to recognise that they should resign.
We shall—compounding the sadness—now have to have more committees. I have been both an Anglican and a non-Anglican, and have therefore seen the Church from both inside and outside. Although it forced me out, I still love it. It has so much of importance. But I still despair of the constant desire to solve all its problems by establishing yet more committees.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in his charming way, in all fairness, could not describe the Measure without mentioning how the committee structure would be changed—for that is at the heart of the proposals. The new Church of England's answer to all problems is: "Another committee, with wider reference and greater connection with more people." I really wonder whether that will forward the Kingdom of God—which, oddly enough, is what cathedrals are supposed to do.
I found that part of the debate particularly bleak, for it proposes a bureaucrat's solution. I am not at all sure that the House should not be considering a rather different Measure—one to get rid of committees, to reduce bureaucracy, to close down Church House entirely, and instead to allow the Church of England to reform itself from bottom up. I am sure that such a Measure would not have done more for all Britain's cathedrals than almost anything else. Nevertheless, that is not what we are doing. We are considering a Measure that is designed so to trammel and confine the cathedrals of our land that those for whom eccentricity became positively dangerous might be stopped.
I am sad also that members of the Ecclesiastical Committee have had to press for the same trammelling to apply to three other institutions that, unaccountably, are omitted from the Measure.
The House does not consider this type of Measure in debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and in other stages. I am therefore thinking that this debate is a mixture of all those stages, and hope that it will be in order to

refer to matters that are not dealt with in the Measure. One such matter is the application of the Measure's provisions to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's chapel, Windsor, and, of course, to Westminster abbey.
We have just seen a remarkable example of how St. George's, Windsor is able to contribute to national life, and we already knew the fascinating mixture that is Christ Church, which is both a college and the cathedral of the Oxford diocese. They demonstrate the curious differences between the types of institution that this type of legislation has to cover.
Unfortunately, Westminster abbey has not been a good example of such flexibility. I endorse the request made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for a full-scale debate on the situation at the abbey, not least because of the revelations in relation to its accounts. I should also like to address the general issue of cathedral accounts—which I am not at all sure is addressed in the Measure. Cathedrals are now in receipt of large sums of money and happily, at long last, the state has begun to recognise that the whole community, not just those who go to church, has a responsibility to keep the roof on. We are one of the meanest countries in the world in terms of our support of the churches. It is a sad thing, but it is true. The cathedrals now have rather more than they did, but often it is not enough. They also receive money from tourists. No cathedral or similar institution receives as much as Westminster abbey.
It is proper for parliamentarians to ask how that largesse is used on behalf of all of us. In an odd way, the cathedrals are an example of stewardship. The general run of them were not built by the Church of England. They were seen as different institutions historically and they are under guardianship on behalf of many others in the Church of England. I hesitate to say this, but it is interesting to see how much larger a proportion of a much smaller income is used for charitable purposes by Westminster cathedral at one end of Victoria street compared with Westminster abbey. It is proper to ask why, and who makes such decisions.
It is also proper for us to know more about the uses to which the money raised from tourists and others is put, but my last point is about the individuals involved. I was brought up in a cathedral city. I went to a cathedral school and my father was a member of a cathedral chapter, so I declare an interest over a considerable length of time. Cathedrals are able to operate because of the devoted work of large numbers of people, many of them lay people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said. We need to make sure that those people can play a full part in the mission of the cathedral.
Cathedrals are not there to be historic monuments. They are there to provide a witness of the enduring power of the faith of Jesus Christ. We ought not to have a debate such as this without talking in those terms. If we fail to do that, we miss out the central issue. Perhaps, in that context, I can say what grieves me most about the need for this legislation and the legislation that we are likely to see very soon. There is something about the structure of cathedrals today that enables people to feel that they are theirs and that they have certain comfortable positions which it is almost improper to suggest ought to be very carefully thought through.
I am not sure that every member of a cathedral chapter has a job description or proper targets for what they ought to be doing. That sounds very oddly modern, but if we


are to have a bureaucratic Church let us have some of the advantages of modern bureaucratic practice. If the Dean of Westminster carefully considered what his job description ought to be, which I think him not to have, he might, indeed I think he would, agree with me that there comes a moment when it is best for the sake of everyone to go. Were that to have happened, I doubt whether this House would have had to ask for another Measure to follow this one. If it had happened in two other cathedrals, I doubt whether we would have had to have this Measure.
The reason why I care about the matter so passionately is that we live in a society in which variety is increasingly difficult. Everyone needs to be within a defined box lest something goes wrong. The people who make that variety so difficult to uphold are the individuals who, when they have used the power that they have been given beyond reasonable limits, do not recognise that their independence demands the responsibility to know when to go.
The Measure is before us because two people did not know when to go. The one that is coming will be before us because one other also failed in the responsibility to the independence and variety which has up to now been the glory of our cathedrals and has explained why for 160 years we have not had to have a debate.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall make only a brief speech. My speech was to some extent contingent on the way in which the debate went. I declare an interest, at least at this moment, as a lay adviser to St. Paul's cathedral since 1980. The lay body owes its origins to the great late Launcelot Fleming, who, as Bishop of Norwich, was responsible for the creation of lay advisers to that cathedral taken from across the diocese. The chance that Alan Webster came to St. Paul's after having been the Dean of Norwich meant that the idea was then developed at St. Paul's. Launcelot Fleming went on to become the Dean of St. George's, Windsor and thus has a walk-on part in our debate.
The lay body of St. Paul's has had the considerable benefit of the advice of Lady Howe of Aberavon, to whom the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred. It was valuable advice. I understand that the dean and chapter of St. Paul's welcome the Measure. The lay body to which I have belonged for 19 years will cease before the millennium and the new body that will be created under the Measure will take over.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has now left the Chamber. In the context of his references to the Ecclesiastical Committee, I shall simply remark that I have never sought to be a member of the committee and I have suffered no distress to my psyche from the fact that I have not so served.
I could not be unaware, however, of the involvement of certain right hon. and hon. Members in the matter of Westminster abbey. I mention wholly neutrally and without any angst the fact that there were no particular contacts with me at the level of constituency courtesy about those involvements. I feel no angst because I have been long accustomed in my 22 years in the House to the fact that the majority of my colleagues regard my constituency as the equivalent of the district of Columbia—without any democratic representation at all.

Those who would be deeply hurt and offended if I were to appear in their constituency without having sent them a postcard have no hesitation in traversing my constituency in hobnail boots. That is not a reference to the manner in which people have behaved in this matter, but I hope that a brief reference to events at Westminster abbey is in order—events to which allusion has been made by one or two other participants in the debate.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for not pressing the matter in the context of the debate, other than in the references that they have made, but it is fair to say that they have made certain animadversions. The dean and chapter have accepted Lord Jauncey's judgment. The only observation that I would make—I am touching on things that have been said before—is that the dean and chapter in the matter to which oblique reference has been made sought to work within the employment law of this country, not under any special jurisdiction or position that the Royal Peculiar afforded them.
I have only once appeared—I think that this is relevant—in an industrial relations tribunal case. It was, in the light of subsequent developments, a fairly remarkable case to have participated in, as my counsel was the present Lord Chancellor and the pupil whom he brought to the case was the present Prime Minister. It is to the credit of both those right hon. Gentlemen that we won the case.
However, I learned from that experience that one of the most disagreeable features—my brother is a lawyer although I am not—of being involved in any such case is the very firm advice that one receives from lawyers that one must not behave in as open and generous a manner in the ordinary conduct of business as one would naturally wish to do with someone with whom one has worked closely in the past. It is a very disagreeable condition to be in; I have been in it myself.

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would accept the following: many of us feel that when Christians deal with other Christians, every effort must be made not to go to law. I believe that that is actually a gospel demand. The issue—it was the issue long before the employment rules were reached—is what was referred to in Lord Jauncey's judgment about the rules of natural justice. I want to go further and suggest to my right hon. Friend that perhaps the true concern is that people did not behave as brothers at the beginning, but allowed the situation to develop until lawyers got involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the lawyers get involved, it is very difficult to be charitable.

Mr. Brooke: I am reasonably sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to follow my right hon. Friend down that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite correct. I think that we are now in danger of having the debate that we must not have.

Mr. Brooke: I anticipated your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so my right hon. Friend's words will be in the Official Report and no words that I might say in response will be—but then he is a much more shrewd and cunning parliamentarian than I am.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for not seeking to hold up the Measure this evening. In areas outside the Peculiars, it is obviously welcomed by deans and chapters up and down the land, so it is a thoroughly good thing that it should proceed.
As to the commission that has been appointed in connection with the Royal Peculiars, I understand that the dean and chapter of Westminster welcome that; as their local Member of Parliament, I certainly do, too.
If the authorities of the House were to pay due attention to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, that there should be a debate, it would be better if the debate occurred in the aftermath of the commission's report rather than in advance of it, but I would certainly wish to participate in it, were it to occur. I support the Measure before us.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that he had never sought to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. If he had served on it, he would have enriched it. His wisdom and his contributions would have enlivened our discussions. I hope that, even at this late stage in his most distinguished parliamentary career, he might consider expressing a desire to serve on that committee.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the House will forgive me if I say something that might technically be slightly out of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned Westminster cathedral. Until now, there has been no opportunity in the House to pay tribute to the very great Christian who died last week and who will be buried tomorrow—Cardinal Basil Hume. I should like to do so now. If all those in positions of authority within all the Churches showed his degree of Christian charity and humility, not only would we not be having this debate tonight but we would not need to have many on Church affairs. He has made an outstanding contribution to the spiritual and social life of the country. It is right that that should be on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned my long membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Twenty-eight years is indeed quite a long time, and I believe that I hold the record for serving on it longer than anyone else. It is a most unsatisfactory committee because it has no power to do more than exercise a certain amount of influence. We can never amend any Measure that comes before us. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows too well, we are faced with the stark choice of deeming a Measure expedient and letting it proceed and come to the House, or sending it back to Synod because we do not deem it expedient. To be realistic, it is unlikely that the committee's terms of reference will be rewritten, but it is useful to place on record the fact that, from time to time, it is a very frustrating committee of which to be a member.
I must declare an interest in that I am an elected member of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who spoke with his customary lucidity, is on the General Synod too, ex officio. I am now the only Member of either House of Parliament to have been elected to the General Synod by the most peculiar

system of proportional representation that we were castigating an hour or so ago in the Chamber. That body could be vastly improved, especially if every member of every electoral roll in the country had a vote for Synod representatives, but that is not in order this evening.
When I was on the General Synod, I did not support the Cathedrals Measure because I have always felt that hard cases made bad law. Although I am not suggesting that the Measure is bad law, and I will commend it to the House, it seemed to me that the rich diversity of our ecclesiastical life, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal spoke eloquently, was being to a degree dragooned and made uniform by the Measure, and all because there had been a couple of incidents which, understandably, had given cause for disquiet—especially the events at Lincoln.
I cast no criticism at the work of Lady Howe—a good friend of many hon. Members present—and her cathedrals commission, which went into the matter with great diligence and thoroughness and, I believe, visited every cathedral in the country. I visited almost every cathedral in the country when I wrote a book on cathedrals in 1984, and I was struck by the excellent way in which most of them were managed, their treasures presented and the worship—the most important thing—carried out. They are beacons and centres of excellence in every sense.
I would not want anyone to think that the Cathedrals Measure was in any way a vote of no confidence in the way in which our cathedrals have been organised and managed by their deans and chapters and provosts during the past 50 years. We are very fortunate in the way our cathedrals are managed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who has enormous experience of its beautiful cathedral and who spoke eloquently about all the work that the volunteers do, emphasised that.
I hope that the new Measure, which I support, will not put the dead hand of uniformity on the way cathedrals are organised. I support the Measure—I am not suggesting that the House should do anything other than support it—but I hope that our speeches will send a message that, within the House, we do appreciate the rich diversity. We do understand that the way Lincoln is run, when it is run properly, is not necessarily precisely the same way as Exeter or Ripon should be run. I hope that all those who have charge of our great cathedrals, especially those who will be members of the new Bishops Council, will not feel that they have always to consort to ensure that what is done in one cathedral is precisely replicated in another.
It would be wrong not to refer briefly to what has been said about the abbey. I, too, welcome the fact that there is to be an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars although I deeply regret the necessity for it. I do not want to be accused of passing any judgment. Regardless of who has been right or wrong, what has happened over the past year has done enormous damage to the Church of England.
If cathedrals are the beacons of our national Church, the abbey is the supreme lighthouse. It is perceived by many as the embodiment of the national Church. It is tragic—I use the word deliberately—that events should have happened there that have shaken people's confidence in the national Church. I hope that the inquiry will be thorough but not protracted and that when it is complete its findings will be able to be debated both in Synod and in the House.
I hope that everyone who has been involved in the affairs of the abbey over the past year will recognise that there is a great deal of repair work to be done and many bridges to be built if confidence is to be restored. I am not seeking to apportion blame, but the abbey is not a very happy place at the moment for many people who have given a lifetime's service to it. I want that to be remedied at the earliest possible date.
The Measure is important and will transform the way in which our cathedrals are managed and presented in a way that no other Measure has ever done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that it was the biggest change since 1833. That is true, but it is a different sort of change. It is a managerial change and it is extremely important that those who occupy new positions of authority in the Bishops Council and elsewhere never lose sight of the fact that a cathedral church—the seat of the bishop of the diocese—is the building most people look up to. In its services and the dignity of its worship, it should be the embodiment of all that is best in the Anglican Church. If the Measure can assist in making that the norm, that is good.
It would be very sad if the House were to divide on the Measure, and I am glad that it is not going to do so. I know that there are those present who, had there not been the promise of the inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, would have felt that they had to make that statement. I know that my right hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that—the Member for Birkenhead is one of those. We can all now go forward in a positive spirit. I wish the Measure every success.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Cardinal Hume. I met him when he was given the freedom of the city of Newcastle way back in 1981, and we stayed friends from that time forth. The last time he was in the House I reminded him of that event and he said that it was one of the happiest moments of his life. In his simplicity lay his greatness: he who was given such honour in his lifetime felt that the greatest honour of all was to be given the freedom of the city where he was born. I associate myself with the thoughts expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The late cardinal was a great supporter of Newcastle United. Listening to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who wanted to be on the Ecclesiastical Committee, to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who never had such an ambition, and then to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is on it, I thought that it might be time for some free transfers.
As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I appreciate the contribution that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal makes to our debates and proceedings, as I appreciate those of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is still here even though he has outside engagements.
These debates may be sparsely attended, but we have some of the finest debaters in the Chamber here tonight and they have made scintillating contributions. The hon.

Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) told us that he was brought up almost in the precincts of the cathedral—I know that his father was a bishop—and one gets a wonderful sense of richness and depth from these debates, in which it is a great pleasure for me to participate.
Reference has been made to Westminster abbey and to St. George's chapel, Windsor. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned the memorable royal wedding there. I was told that it was the last royal wedding of the century, which is not surprising, but those wonderful television commentators have to tell us something. As the House knows, neither of those is a cathedral: they are Royal Peculiars, as are the chapels royal. The Howe commission's remit did not extend to them and the Measure does not apply to them.
The House is aware of an announcement made on 18 May that, at the request of the Dean of Westminster, the Dean of Windsor and the Bishop of London, as dean of the chapels royal, Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to appoint a new commission to review the organisation, management and accountability of those institutions. It will report to Her Majesty through the Lord Chancellor. The review will not affect the institutions' status as Royal Peculiars, but the three deans' request arose out of their concern that the relevance to the Peculiars of the principles on which the Howe commission based its findings should be properly considered.
The new commission will be chaired by Professor Averil Cameron, warden of Keble college, Oxford. The other members will be the Dean of York, the very Rev. Raymond Furnell, who, until recently, was chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, and was a member of the steering committee for the Measure; and Sir Brian Jenkins, chairman of Woolwich plc and a former Lord Mayor of London. It will combine the various types of expertise needed to tackle this important subject successfully, and the three deans have publicly committed themselves to doing all that they can to assist it. It will be for the new commission to consider how the spirit of the Howe recommendations can best be applied to those unique institutions.
Quite apart from the fact that the Measure does not cover Westminster abbey, which is the subject of a separate review along with the other major Royal Peculiars, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the case of particular loans to particular individuals, but the general subject of the finances of cathedrals received close scrutiny from the Howe commission and is dealt with by the Measure.
I have already referred to the finance committee of the chapter, which will advise the chapter on financial and investment management, and will include members who have expertise and experience in these fields.
The chapter must prepare an annual budget for the cathedral, which must be considered by the council. The chapter must produce an annual report and accounts in accordance with the best professional standards and practice, as specified by the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners have prescribed detailed guidelines for the accounts, and they have the power to inquire into any shortcomings. The accounts must be audited, and they and the annual report will be considered by the council and the College of Canons. That will help


to ensure that every cathedral's financial affairs are dealt with properly, effectively and openly on the basis of professional advice, and are regularly subject to proper scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to Christ Church, Oxford, which is a cathedral of the diocese of Oxford and thus fell within the Howe commission's remit. The Howe commission visited it and examined its affairs in detail. However, it is also part of an Oxford college, and is governed by the statutes of that college. It has always been recognised as a unique case which cannot be governed by the same legislation as the other cathedrals. Equally, it was recognised that the principles underlying the Howe commission's recommendations could not be applied in the same way as to other cathedrals.
The dean and canons of Christ Church have been anxious to ensure that the cathedral complies with these principles. I have placed in the Library a note explaining that the cathedral is within the spirit of the Measure in matters such as accountability and communication, lay participation, proper financial management, careful scrutiny of budgets and accounts, and strong links with the diocese.
My final and parting words are to say how much I have welcomed the co-operation of those on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the kind thoughts and sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire—I shall run out of names shortly. They have all contributed sensibly to an important Measure, which has taken five years to get to the House. I am happy to commend the Measure to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I put the Question, may I say on a personal note that I welcome the comments made about Cardinal Hume. I mourn his passing: he was a good friend to many of us in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Care of Places of Worship Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
In section 1(2) of the Measure it should say
Subject to subsection (5) below
and not subsection (4), as incorrectly printed. That saves me from coming back to the House, as the Home Secretary did earlier today.
The House may be pleased to note that this is a fairly brief Measure, and does not compel anyone to take action under it unless they wish to do so. However, it forms a significant part of the Church of England's legislative process for safeguarding the Church's places of worship, which are an important aspect of this nation's heritage. The Church has been carrying out that process in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage, and this Measure will help to fill a gap in the arrangements for ensuring that all those buildings are well cared for.
I should stress, as the Ecclesiastical Committee did, that this Measure relates only to places of worship linked to the Church of England. Thus, it does not apply to places of worship that belong exclusively to other Christian Churches or to the buildings of non-Christian faiths. Its origins lie in the so-called ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls for ecclesiastical buildings, which are for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes and in the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which cut down the scope of the exemption.
In the case of the Church of England, the main provisions of the 1994 order restricted the exemption to buildings that are within the Church's legal controls: that is, those relating to cathedrals or the Church's faculty system, which covers parish churches and some other places of worship. They are stringent legal systems of control, although they take account of the need to use the building concerned effectively for the Church's worship and mission.
However, the 1994 order also contained other exemptions for a number of buildings that were not within any effective form of control under either secular legislation or the Church's own systems. They included the Ecclesiastical Peculiars, so called because they lie outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese—some chapels of religious communities of monks and nuns; chapels of schools, colleges and various other institutions; and some shared church buildings that are used jointly by the Church of England and other Christian Churches.
The Church and the Government agreed that this situation was not satisfactory. It was always known that the special exemption in the 1994 order would be withdrawn sooner rather than later. The Church of


England agreed with the Government that it would bring legislation to the General Synod to allow the places of worship in the categories that I have mentioned to opt into the Church's system of control under the faculty jurisdiction if they wished. If they did not, and if the buildings in question were listed buildings or in conservation areas, they would normally come within the secular listed building and conservation area controls once the special exemption in the 1994 order was revoked. The main object of the Measure is to fulfil that agreement. Briefly, it provides that the proper authority or authorities for a place of worship that falls within the categories in section 1(2) can have it entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body on, among other matters, the use, care and conservation of places of worship. They can also apply to have the buildings removed from the list if they wish.
While a place of worship is on the list, it will be within the faculty jurisdiction and, in most cases, within the provision for five-yearly inspection by a qualified architect or surveyor in the Inspection of Church Buildings Measure 1955. The list will be open for public inspection and copies will be made available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; English Heritage; the national amenity bodies; and the local planning authorities concerned.
The position of places of worship that fall within section 1(2) will be clear. They will be within the faculty jurisdiction or they will be subject to the normal listed building or conservation area controls or an alternative agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As a result, the so-called gap in control, which has existed for many years in the legal arrangements for safeguarding such places of worship, will be filled.
Faculty jurisdiction will not be a soft option. The faculty system exercises careful control over changes to the buildings that it covers and it has been strengthened in recent years in close consultation with the Department and English Heritage. Aspects of it are being looked at again in the light of the recent report on ecclesiastical exemption produced for the Department.
We have consulted widely at each stage of the legislation with individual institutions and representative bodies as well as with the Department and English Heritage. A great deal of account has been taken of their comments and suggestions.
This modest Measure is urgently needed so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can make progress on revoking the temporary exemptions under the 1994 Order. It had the overwhelming support of the General Synod, it has the support of English Heritage and it has been declared expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. I ask the House to approve the Measure and take a further step to protect some of the finest parts of the nation's built heritage.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he has presented the Measure. As he says, it is modest, but important. There is scarcely a town or village in England where the church is

not one of the most prominent buildings, and in many cases it is the most prominent and the building of greatest historical and architectural interest. One can trace the social history of our country through its parish churches. It is vital that they should be properly conserved and that there should be proper controls on internal and external alterations and additions. They must be subject to regular architectural inspection. I speak as a churchwarden who has some responsibility for a lovely old church. The Measure will help. I commend it to the House and thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced it. I hope that we shall give it a swift passage on to the statute books.

Mr. John Maxton: I do not intend to vote against the Measure, although I was tempted to vote against the previous one when I came in for the end of that debate. It is absurd that, in the last six months of the 20th century, the House of Commons still devotes three hours to debating one Church. It never debates any other religion. Most other religions would rightly bitterly resent any interference by this House in the running of their affairs, yet the Church of England is still given time to debate its reforms, which have to be brought here for approval. That is totally wrong. It is the Church of England and this, as we are so often reminded by Conservative Members, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not just England.

Mr. Robert Key: It is always a pleasure to see a Scottish Member intervening in the affairs of England, even though he has his own Parliament now. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Measure and attend the debate, he would understand that the purpose of the Ecclesiastical Committee is not to be the voice of the Church of England, but to ensure that Church of England legislation does not bear down oppressively on all the citizens of the United Kingdom, including his constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should like to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—

Mr. Maxton: You are not going to let me go far down that road.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a question of going far down it. The hon. Gentleman cannot go down that road at all, because it is outwith the terms of the Measure. He can speak only about the Measure.

Mr. Maxton: To finish my point, the House should not be debating the issue. The Church of England should be disestablished.
The Measure adds more churches and religious buildings, including school chapels and others, to the list of those to be protected. Last week, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport took evidence from English Heritage. It transpires that English Heritage spent £40 million on preserving churches, and that is only a small fraction of the state money that it receives. Although the Measure has no direct financial implications, does the


fact that extra buildings are being added to the list mean that, eventually, the Church of England will come back to the Department looking for more money?

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Measure or, if he has read it, he has not understood it. Buildings are not being added to the list; it is merely a question of whether they maintain the ecclesiastical exemption to which very high standards are applied, or whether they opt for the secular system, to put it very simply and crudely. It is not a matter of adding vast numbers of buildings to the list.
I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally exceptionally civilised and enjoys the cultured and sensible things of life, should be making such an iconoclastic speech.

Mr. Maxton: I am making an iconoclastic speech because I do not believe that taxpayers' money—whether it is lottery money or from anywhere else—should be spent in over-large amounts on one particular religion.
As I have said in the House, I am an atheist and anti-clerical and I do not believe that religion should play the large part that it does in the House or elsewhere. In my opinion, we spend far too much time and money on preserving something that I personally do not believe in. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) say whether the Measure has any direct or indirect financial implications?

Mr. Peter Brooke: It would be wrong to say that I was provoked to speak by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton); nor would it be appropriate to say that the working of the Holy Spirit has brought my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and myself to the Chamber on this occasion, but he will remember, as I do, that, when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was set up, he and I inherited the issue of the ecclesiastical exemption.
I remember the order being delayed by my raising questions about exactly the bodies that are referred to in clause (1)(2) and I am indebted to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for having introduced the Measure when I was here for other purposes so that I am brought wholly up to date with the narrative. Although it was

extremely interesting to hear the views of the hon. Member for Cathcart, they were not strictly germane to the Measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I always appreciate the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) which remind me of my last conversation with an atheist, who told me, "I am an atheist, thank God." I appreciate our various conversations on these important subjects and I am happy that he has intervened in the debate and put the record straight. Of course, the Measure places no financial obligations on the state.

Mr. Key: Although it is hardly germane to our debate, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has intervened, let me say for the record that the Earl of Cathcart was buried today at Middle Woodford church in my constituency.

Mr. Bell: These debates have the potential of developing very widely, and, as you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are allowed to enjoy a short diversion.
I can say sincerely that the Measure places no financial obligation on the state. As I said at the beginning of the debate, it does not compel anyone to take action unless they so wish. It is a matter entirely for the additional bodies. If they wish to participate, they can, and if they do not wish to participate, they are under no obligation to do so.
The entire process has been carried forward in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage. It allows those who so wish to have their place of worship placed within the categories that I described earlier and entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body. That will assist those places of worship, if they so wish, to have proper use, care and conservation of their buildings. This is a positive but small Measure which will try to maintain the heritage that we all enjoy, in our own different ways, of our chapels, churches and places of worship.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Care of Places of Worship Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

The Speaker's Absence

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 1st July to attend the opening of the Scottish Parliament.— [Mrs. Beckett.]

Mr. John Maxton: I rise briefly to make this point. Of course, I have no intention of objecting to the Speaker attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament next Thursday. It is entirely appropriate that she should do so on what will be an historic occasion. However, I find it slightly odd that, again, at the end of the 20th century, the House should have to pass a motion to allow our Speaker to have one day's leave of absence to attend such an occasion.
The last time this happened was when Madam Speaker received an honorary degree from my old university, Oxford, and the House had to pass a motion to allow her to do so. I am asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, whether she should take this minor custom of the House to the Committee and see whether we should abolish it, and allow the Deputy Speaker automatically to take the Chair whenever Madam Speaker has to leave to attend certain occasions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: For the second time this evening, I find myself in total disagreement with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I warmly endorse the motion. It is right and proper that Madam Speaker should accept this invitation, but it is right also that we should keep this convention within the House. There is a similar convention in the other place—the Lord Chancellor

always has to seek leave of absence if he does something. It is right and proper that that should be the case, and I hope that the Speaker has a wonderful day.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reveal to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that we are not yet in the last six months of this century?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes. It is surprising that one so numerically literate is 18 months out, and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. The new century does not begin until 1 January 2001, and it is about time that people realised that.

Mr. Maxton: Do we take it, therefore, that we have another 18 months to ensure that the millennium dome works?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not be tempted down that road—even if I could walk there on water, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless could. I hope that the Speaker has a splendid day next Thursday, and I am delighted to support the motion.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am sure that we all hope that the Speaker has a splendid day. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made his point with courtesy, and he was wise not to object to the Speaker being away. Hon. Members are wise to remember the courtesies open to the Speaker. I take my hon. Friend's point—as I do that of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—about the historic nature of this measure, and I accept my hon. Friend's reminder as to whether we should take the matter under advisement. On this occasion, the House would be well advised to pass the measure speedily.

Question put and agreed to.

Air Guns (Safety)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am conscious of the fact that tonight's Adjournment debate is starting early, so I shall be happy to take interventions from either side of the House—although it looks as if we shall not hear from many Opposition Members.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the important issue of the safety of air guns. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government need to take seriously incidents involving air guns. After all, we now have probably the tightest hand gun legislation in the world—and rightly so—since the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government's actions in tightening up hand gun legislation were widely welcomed after the tragic events in Hungerford and Dunblane. The Government's actions have been more than vindicated by recent horrendous incidents on high school campuses in the United States.
I applied for this Adjournment debate because in recent months there have been two serious incidents involving the misuse of air guns in my constituency. The first, and by far the more serious, occurred in January in Grimethorpe. Adam Yoxall, a 10-year-old boy, was tragically hit in the eye by an air gun pellet while playing in a local wood. As a direct consequence, he has now lost the sight in his left eye, and surgeons have been unable to remove the pellet, for fear that, if they do, he risks losing the sight in his other eye. The problem is that the pellet is not lodged in Adam's eye but is floating around in the aqueous humour.
Adam has to attend Rotherham hospital every six weeks so that doctors can monitor whether any infection is present that might spread to his good eye. I can only imagine how distressed Adam's parents must feel about the situation. Since the incident, Adam has suffered from trauma attacks and receives professional counselling. I saw Adam's parents over the weekend, and they informed me that the incident has affected Adam's behavioural patterns and his educational progress. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Adam and his family all the best for the future.
The second incident in my constituency happened in April, in Thurnscoe. A boy of 12 was left in agony after being shot in the back by a sniper. He was sitting on a bench when he was hit in the back by a pellet which penetrated his clothing and left him with a bright red and painful area on his back. He was taken to Mexborough Montagu hospital and allowed home after treatment. Police efforts to trace the sniper unfortunately failed to identify the culprit.
I am sorry to say that those occurrences are not isolated incidents. In 1996, the last year for which figures are available, 1,203 offences in which air weapons were used were recorded by the police.

Mr. Michael Clapham: As I understand it, air rifles come in two calibres—the .177 and the .22. The .22 is the more powerful, and I am told that a .22 air rifle can penetrate a metal sheet. Does my hon. Friend agree that the

manufacturers of air rifles could technically reduce the power of those weapons that are not used on ranges? Does he think that that measure would provide some safety for the public?

Mr. Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I appreciate his knowledge on the subject. I am not an expert on air rifles, but I understand that, on certain weapons, the power of the mechanism can be adjusted. If people are stopped by the police when they are in possession of such weapons, they turn the power of the weapon down so that it conforms to the air gun legislation. As I said, I am not an expert, but I have heard of weapons with that feature and am obviously worried about them, too.
I noted earlier that the general trend is that the number of air gun incidents is falling, and I said that there were 1,203 such incidents in 1996. In contrast, there were 1,718 recorded offences in 1992, but even one recorded air gun incident a year is one too many, and we should not be complacent.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an animal welfare element to this problem? The Cats Protection League has estimated that 10,000 cats a year are shot with air guns, and that is a source of considerable anguish to pet owners.

Mr. Ennis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to embarrass him, but I intend to quote from the ten-minute Bill that he introduced last year on that very point. With my hon. Friend's permission, I shall respond to that issue later in my speech.
Air gun weapons are by no means a new scourge on society. About 20 years ago, I was a victim of an air gun incident. At the time, I was a teacher in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield. One beautiful summer's evening, I was driving up a steep hill towards the village in which I lived. The car slowed as it crested the hill, which was about a mile from my house. I had the window down, and suddenly felt a sharp pain in my chest. I wondered whether I was having a heart attack or an angina attack. I immediately stopped the car, and noticed a pellet in my lap. When I turned around, I saw a couple of youths running away across the fields with an air rifle.
Clearly, that could have been a very serious incident. If the pellet had hit me in the face I could have lost control of the car and skidded off the road, perhaps hitting a pedestrian or colliding with another vehicle. In many respects, I was fortunate. I raise my experience of being the victim of such an attack because I did not report it to the police at the time; I am sure that the figures that I cited represent only a fraction of the real number of offences committed each year.
What can the Government do to reduce the number of air gun incidents and the consequent distress caused to victims and their families? I looked at the current legislation, and, on paper, the controls appear quite tight, especially given that 4 million air guns are estimated to be in use in this country.
In January 1998, a ten-minute Bill, the Acquisition and Possession of Air Weapons (Restriction) Bill, was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who I am glad to see in his place this evening. That Bill attempted to raise the minimum age for


possessing an air weapon from 14 to 17, and to address the enormous problem that domestic animals and wild birds are often the target of air gun offenders. It also recognised that a huge amount of human suffering is caused by those offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe pointed out that, every year, large numbers of cats, dogs, horses and wild birds—including swans—are the victims of air gun attacks. He said that, every year, 10,000 cats are either maimed or killed by air guns. That is equivalent to about 30 cats per day.
I am not convinced that such a measure would reduce the problem significantly, however. Many of the incidents that occur involve children even younger than 14. I believe that there is a genuine need for better enforcement and better education. Better enforcement of current legislation by the police would certainly have an impact on the level of abuse and misuse of air weapons.
The practical problem of better enforcement is that many incidents involve very young children. In some cases, they are as young as eight or nine and the incidents in which they are involved are, in many cases, their first offences. Initial punishment tends to be only a caution or a warning. Yet the incident may be serious, and many people feel that the punishment does not fit the crime.
Better education is essential if parents and children are to realise that air guns are not toys, but potentially lethal weapons which should be treated as such.

Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend welcome the initiative taken by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has persuaded some British manufacturers to include leaflets in air gun packaging? The problem is with imported air guns.

Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for that valid point. The initiative is a step in the right direction and it is good that British manufacturers are leading the way.
I was speaking of education. In the short term at least, the Home Office should consider funding a video for junior and secondary schools to highlight safety and the proper use of air guns as well as the legal consequences of flouting the law. The Home Office should also consider producing a leaflet outlining the facts that children could take home to their parents. Many air gun incidents are a direct consequence of lack of parental responsibility.
In February, the Earl of Mar and Kellie asked in the other place whether the Government had any plans to legislate for inclusion of air guns in the firearms licensing scheme. In response, Lord Williams of Mostyn stated:
The Government have no plans at present to introduce legislation to require the certification of low-powered air guns. There are already laws in place to control the use and possession of these guns and we shall keep under close scrutiny the way in which they are used. In particular, we have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee to consider existing controls as part of their 1999 work programme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 142.]
Has the FCC carried out that review, or will it be programmed for consideration later in the year? Even with the review, it would be right to discuss this extremely important public safety issue in greater detail in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which could draw positive conclusions on an emotive subject.
As long as tragic incidents such as the one that befell Adam Yoxall are taking place, the Government cannot afford to be complacent about the safety of air guns. We need to educate youngsters and their parents about the dangers. We must repeat that air guns are not toys, but potentially lethal weapons. With the co-operation of local police forces, we must ensure effective enforcement of control of air weapons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) a debt of gratitude for enabling us to consider the safety of air guns. All hon. Members would join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for young Adam and his family following the serious injury that he has sustained. Sometimes, those outside the House do not realise the importance that we, as Members, attach to Adjournment debates as a means of raising constituency issues that have a real resonance in our own local areas, but which, in turn, also strike a chord much more widely than in the areas that we represent as individuals.
The seriousness with which the House treats such concerns is shown by the fact that my hon. Friend is accompanied this evening by no fewer than four other Labour Members. That is an indication of the way in which this particular case has struck a chord with other hon. Members, who have knowledge of, and a constituency interest in, the matter that he raises. He told us of Adam Yoxall, a 10-year-old, who, while playing with a group of friends, was seriously injured by an air gun that one of the children had taken from home without permission. The gun was handled by another child; it went off and the pellet hit young Adam in the eye at fairly close range. That caused severe damage, as my hon. Friend described. As a result of one moment's loss of control, a life will be severely affected for its duration.
The South Yorkshire police described that incident as a terrible accident. It was truly terrible. We need to reflect on the circumstances in which it occurred, and, this evening, we have been given the opportunity to do so. That incident points to the importance of ensuring that air guns are kept securely, and are never kept in a place in which they might be accessible to young children. Adults need to learn that lesson, and we need to ensure that it is learned so that children do not have access to air guns. As my hon. Friend says, air guns should not be seen as being an extension of the pop gun, or as some sort of toy; they are extremely dangerous implements.
My hon. Friend mentioned a second incident, which appears to have been a deliberate act to inflict harm on a young boy. That introduces an altogether different element into the equation—one that the whole House will want to deplore, because, again, it has resonance for us all. I must point out to my hon. Friend that, glad as I am to respond to the debate, he has caused me some agitation. In order to fulfil my duties and responsibilities to the House, I had to leave a packed church in my constituency, where at least 300 people had gathered to meet local police, and council and community leaders, to express their concern about a spate of shootings in my constituency. Those shootings led to loss of life and have obviously been a cause of considerable concern, so 1 very much feel for him in the concerns that he expresses to the House this evening.
When such events occur in one's constituency, one's first and most important instinct is to ensure that the House knows about them. That is very important and should not be underestimated. Secondly, one wants to ensure that something is done as a response. I hope that I do not trespass on your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that that is why we place such value on our links with our constituents. That is why it is always important that they know that they have someone who, on occasions such as this, can raise a particular constituency interest.
Our main concern must be to reduce the sort of dreadful incident about which we have heard tonight. One such incident must be regarded as one too many. That is why the main thrust of the legislation governing air guns—and indeed the legislation governing all firearms—is aimed at protecting public safety. For the purpose of firearms legislation, an air gun is a weapon with a barrel through which a missile is discharged by the use of compressed air or carbon dioxide.
However, it must be borne in mind that not all air guns can be classed as firearms. Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as
a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile.
Thus, in order to be classified as a firearm, an object must be a weapon; it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired; and the effect of the missile at the target must be lethal. Lethality is defined in law as:
capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury".
A trivial injury is one that involves only superficial damage, such as bruising. Put plainly, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is classed as a firearm.
Firearms experts at the Forensic Science Service advise that the lowest power level at which a penetrating injury can occur is at a muzzle energy of about 1 joule, which equates to roughly 0.75 ft lb. Some air guns—those of the type generally referred to as airsoft guns; as my hon. Friend said, that title is something of a misnomer—have muzzle energies of about 0.5 ft lb, which is well below that level. As a result, they do not fit the definition of a firearm and do not come under the control of the Firearms Act. The Forensic Science Service believes that, at those very low power levels, such guns are incapable of penetrating even vulnerable parts of the body, such as the eye—although a direct hit from very close range would cause bruising.
A step up from airsoft guns are low-powered air guns. They are pistols with a muzzle energy below 6 ft lb but greater than 0.75 ft lb and rifles with muzzle energies between 0.75 ft lb and 12 ft lb. Hon. Members can see that there is considerable variation in those specifications. Such guns do not have to be kept on a police-issued firearms certificate, but, because they are capable of inflicting a penetrating wound, are none the less classed as firearms.
High-powered air guns of the type often used for hunting small game or in the control of vermin must be kept on a firearms certificate in the same way as any other firearms that come under the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act. That brings high-powered air guns into the same category as high-powered deer-stalking rifles, for example.
Even though there is no need to apply for a firearms certificate in order to buy and keep one, low-powered air guns are clearly firearms and, as such, fall within the scope of the Firearms Act. A wide range of offences relates to firearms, but the ones with most relevance to air guns concern age limits, the carrying and discharging of guns and the carrying of air guns in relation to other crimes. For example, it is an offence—this has an important bearing on the points made by my hon. Friend—to give an air gun to anyone under the age of 14 or to sell an air gun to anyone under 17. Having a loaded air gun in a public place is an offence, as is firing one within 50 ft of a public road. Trespassing with an air gun, be it in a building or on open land, is also an offence.
I must say something about the offence of selling to anyone under the age of 17 an air gun of the type that I have described. It may seem incredible to those who attend, listen to or read about our proceedings that it is necessary to point out that that is an offence. However, I am afraid that some utterly unscrupulous merchants take every opportunity to sell such air guns—and their associated paraphernalia—to suggestible and susceptible young people.
A number of Members of the House will have had run-ins with such dealers, not least in relation to proper concerns that have been raised, particularly by Labour Members, about certain sorts of knife which are all too readily available. They are sold to members of the public and to susceptible and impressionable young people in particular. It is right to point out the nature of the offence of selling such air guns to anyone under 17.
At the top end of the scale, possessing an air gun with the intent to commit a crime is a serious offence, as is possessing an air gun with the intent of endangering life or property. There are a range of penalties for those various offences, from heavy fines for the lesser ones, such as those relating to age limits, to life imprisonment for going armed to commit a crime or carrying an air gun with the intent to use it to murder. The punishment imposed in any individual case will naturally depend on the gravity of the offence committed.
It is also an offence to possess a high-powered air weapon without a firearms certificate issued by the police. Before issuing a certificate, the police need to be satisfied on a number of points. They need to be sure that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with a firearm, that the gun will be kept securely when not in use and that the applicant has a good reason for possessing a gun in the first place.
Target shooting, which is a recognised discipline, is usually taken as a good reason, but I understand that the most usual reason for people to buy a high-powered air gun is to hunt small game or vermin. That ought not to include cats. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough referred, has expressed concern about the misuse of air guns of varying power for that purpose.
Using air guns in such a way inflicts an extremely unpleasant form of cruelty on animals.

Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that air guns are used to kill wild birds. Does he believe that


increasing the fine for anyone caught killing wild birds would be a deterrent? Has he considered introducing such an increase?

Mr. Boateng: The use of air guns against wild birds, particularly protected species, is a serious act. It may also be an offence. It is to be hoped that those in the courts who are responsible for sentencing are aware of the gravity of such environmental offences, in respect of both the use of the air gun and the protection of the environment, which protected status is designed to ensure. We must keep the issue of sentencing and the environment under close review.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Can my hon. Friend say when the weapons used in the offences referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) will be confiscated? There must be some mechanism for confiscating them from those individuals? Does anything in the law say that that can happen?
While I am on my feet, may I say that we appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has had to leave his constituency, where many people want his presence, to respond to this debate?

Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for the expression of that sentiment. It is much appreciated.
Yes, the courts have general powers of forfeiture in relation to the commissioning of firearms offences. It is important that forfeiture, or more accurately, confiscation, is available to the courts. That power is often used on the recommendation of the police, which is the most usual way of bringing about confiscation, but the courts will want to consider what, if any, powers they have to act on their own volition. It is a deterrent and a form of protection that has much to commend it.
May I say a few words—my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough was good enough in his speech to refer to it—about the statistical trends that are revealed in relation to air guns and their misuse? It must be made clear from the outset that every incident involving air gun misuse is unacceptable, particularly those that cause injury to children. Obviously, it is important to see the issue in perspective, and my hon. Friend has done that in the fair way in which he presented his arguments.
Over the years, there has been a slight increase in the overall number of air gun-related incidents. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, the figures show that control is having an effect on the number of incidents in which people are injured. From 1987 to 1997, the most recent period for which figures are available, the incidence of injury caused by air gun misuse has shown a steady year-on-year decline. In 1997, there was a significant reduction in the number of injuries from air gun misuse in comparison with those recorded in 1987—from 1,782 to 1,194. In addition, only 125 of the incidents in 1997—less than 11 per cent. in total—consisted of an injury more serious than superficial bruising. It must be said, however, that that is more by chance than by design, because how does one know when one has discharged an air gun? The consequences may be much more serious. Nevertheless, that is what the statistics reveal.
As for fatalities, mercifully there was only one between 1993 and 1997. Prior to that, there was an average of one fatality a year, with a maximum of three in any one year. However, even one a year is too many. That represents one family without a loved one, and the idea that there should be three in a single year is absolutely horrific.
There is no room for complacency. Our aim must always be to reduce the number of injuries by air guns to none. The figures are encouraging in so far as they go, compared with the dreadful toll taken on our roads every year by the irresponsible misuse of that most widely owned possession, the motor car.
As for the legitimate use of air guns, the vast majority of air gun users are simply target shooters who pursue their chosen sport in a thoroughly responsible and disciplined manner. They would be horrified at the thought of doing anything with an air gun that might put themselves or their fellow citizens at risk. The sport of target shooting is a recognised Olympic event. Indeed, traditionally our British competitors excelled at it and achieved great success for this country. Many shooting clubs have air gun ranges at which young people, as well as more mature and novice shooters, are taught to use air guns safely and responsibly under proper tuition and supervision.
Air guns are also frequently used by clubs to introduce new members to firearms and to demonstrate their safe handling before such probationers are allowed to handle the more powerful conventional firearms in a club's main range. That means that new shooters have experience of handling safer weapons before being allowed to come into contact with much more powerful cartridge-firing guns.
Despite that responsible use of air guns, however, and despite the requirements of the law, a minority of young people still have or gain access to air guns, and choose to use them irresponsibly and sometimes dangerously. The Government view the misuse of air guns and the flouting of the law by youngsters as a cause for serious concern. That is why—this is entirely separate from the firearms legislation—we have introduced measures to deal more effectively with young people who break the law in any way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and other hon. Friends who are present, have expressed their strong support for the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced a range of measures to reform the youth justice system. There is the final warning triggering intervention by local agencies to nip offending in the bud, the halving of the time currently taken to process young offenders from arrest to sentence, and the child protection order, which can be used when it proves necessary to ensure that young children are kept of the streets and out of trouble late at night. Much of the trouble that can be caused by the misuse of air guns occurs when children are out and about unsupervised, sometimes late at night.
One of the most important aspects of the Crime and Disorder Act is the ability that it gives to courts to refer first-time offenders elsewhere. We are taking that further in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently in Committee. First-time offenders who own up


to their offences will be given the opportunity to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system, and to face up to their responsibilities and their offending through the good offices of a youth offender panel.
That is an important move. It brings together social services departments, health departments, education departments, the police and probation services, which will examine the nature of the offence involved and consider how education and instruction might help to prevent reoffending. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough put his finger on it when he referred to that. Under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, a person who had misused an air gun in the way described by my hon. Friend, and had caused injuries such as those described by him, could be required to engage in a series of activities—for between three and 12 months—designed to demonstrate the consequences of such action in a local accident and emergency department. Such a person could be required to take lessons from an appropriately authorised person in order to learn how air guns should be handled, and to be made aware of the consequences of the mishandling of air guns.
The Crime and Disorder Act already gives courts the power to make a reparation order requiring such young people to make specific reparation, either to the victim of the crime or to the community that has been harmed. Indeed, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales—which was established to develop work programmes and conduct research into how best to prevent offending by young people—is considering ways of ensuring, through the £85 million development fund, that services are stimulated locally to make proposals aimed at preventing offending by young people. I shall draw this debate to the attention of the board, so that it might consider its implications for its work on offending involving air guns and firearms generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough made a good point on the use of videos. We have to be innovative and prepared to use newer technologies in ways that attract and retain young people's interest and involvement, and video is just such a medium.

Mr. Ennis: I thank the Minister for his reply so far—he has said many encouraging things. However, I asked specifically about the question asked in another place by the Earl of Mar and Kellie, and answered by Lord Williams of Mostyn, about whether the Firearms

Consultative Committee could examine the air guns issue as part of its 1999 workload. Will the Minister briefly say something on that point?

Mr. Boateng: Call me old-fashioned, but, in debates, it is always my practice—as the silent one, the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) will testify—to leave the best for last. That is what I have done today.
The measures that I have outlined today, with current firearms legislation, will be aimed at reducing still further the incidence of injury caused by misuse of air guns. However, as I said, there is no room for complacency. It is important that the firearms legislation that I have mentioned should be kept under close scrutiny, to determine whether anything further must be done to protect public safety.
I have therefore determined to ask the Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent statutory body which advises the Government on firearms matters, to consider again controls on air guns in its programme of work for this year. I look forward to receiving the committee's report later in the year, and to consider any recommendations that it may make to improve air gun safety. I shall be particularly interested in any recommendations that it makes on education and enforcement, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, are key elements.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate, and to my other hon. Friends who have taken the trouble to attend it. I should very much welcome an opportunity to meet them when I have the Firearms Consultative Committee's report in order that we can discuss the recommendations and findings that it makes.
On that note, I thank my hon. Friend again for initiating this debate. To go back to the very beginning of this evening's proceedings, let us remember young Adam and his family. That incident is what kicked the debate off. A constituency Member's determination to raise in an Adjournment debate a case of significance with widespread ramifications led us to be gathered here tonight and it is right that, as we close the debate, we should think of Adam Yoxall and his family and wish him a speedy and full recovery.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Ten o'clock.